9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deductible in computing the net wealth of the petitioner. It is stated that, for the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner filed two returns of wealth, one in the capacity of an individual showing a net wealth of Rs. 9,42,740 and the other in the capacity of a private trust showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,31,680. The Wealth-tax Officer is alleged to have passed a single assessment order clubbing the wealth under the two returns filed by the petitioner and computed the net wealth of the petitioner at Rs. 12,09,400 under section 16(3) of the said Act. The petitioner filed a revision petition dated March 6, 1978, under section 25(1) of the said Act before the Commissioner of Incometax, West Bengal-III, Calcutta, praying for various reliefs. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed that, in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77, the Wealth-tax Officer did not allow the deduction of Rs. 1,05,274 being wealth-tax liability arising from the assessment orders for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 passed on March 30, 1976, as revised on April 30, 1976. The assessee's house property at Tilak Marg, New Delhi, was valued at Rs. 2,25,000 and the assessee has filed writ petition under section 25(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax objecting to the disallowance of the deduction in respect of wealth-tax liability. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal-III, by his order dated May 7, 1979, rejected the assessee's claim for deduction of wea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and should be deducted from the estimated value of all the assets as on the valuation date irrespective of the fact whether any assessment has been made or not by that time. The liability to wealth-tax becomes an accrued liability on the valuation date. Mr. Nanda Lal Pal, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, has drawn the attention of the court to various materials on record and particularly the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in revision. He has submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and the impugned order does not suffer from any inherent defect. Having heard the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties and looking to the materials in depth, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
