9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estions of law have been referred for opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 25.6.1993 in respect of assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gold bonds held by the assessee were exempt from being assessed under the Wealth tax Act till these were not redeemed though the date of redemption was over? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of deposit under the CDS was exempt under the Wealth-tax Act?" 2. The assessee had certain National Defence Gold Bonds which were to be redeemed on 27.10.1990. The WTO valued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) was not correct because the date on which the bonds could be redeemed as the relevant date and not the date of actual redemption by the assessee. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has in reply argued that the Tribunal has already held the view that the bonds in the hands of the assessee were exempt till redeemed though the date of redemption might be over. If the assessee did not choose to redeem, he is entitled to claim exemption. It has further been argued by the ld. counsel that the CIT(A) has only remanded the case to the WTO on this question for reappraisal in the light of earlier decision. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the order of the CIT(A) and ground No.2 also fails." 4. We find that the first quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion with regard to the exemption, we believe that the intention of the Legislature was to give exemption in respect of payment of wealth-tax to the holders of gold bond." 5. Following the above decisions, we decide the first question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. We find that the second question is covered by judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Smt.Sunanda Devi Singhania v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1993) 204 ITR 842, wherein the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Considering the question, it was observed (page 847,853) :- "The object of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income tax Payers) Act, 1974, was to augment the resources for economic development of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to any annuity (not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee) in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant. In other words, the value of the assessee's right to receive any annuity purchased by him or purchased by another person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee is to be regarded, for and from the assessment year 1975-76, as his asset for the purpose of the levy of wealth-tax, irrespective of whether such annuity is commutable or not." "In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we have to consider whether the deposit under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme is an annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
