9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nse to the delivery of a legal notice dated 18th January, 1981 by the assessee, through his advocate Shri Ashwani Kumar Chopra, that the Deputy Director, Punjab State Lotteries, Chandigarh, vide his letter dated 28th January, 1981, informed the assessee that his claim was under consideration of the Directorate. He was further informed that one Shri K. Yuvraj had filed a suit in respect of the prize money in question in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh and since the said Court had not yet given stay orders the question of payment of the Prize money to the assessee could be considered if he was able to give an undertaking to the effect that in case the decision was taken adverse to the department by the Court the assessee would refund the amount and further that he would give bank guarantee of the amount involved. On receipt of this letter from the Directorate of Punjab State Lotteries, Chandigarh, the assessee appears to have contacted the Managers of the Bank of Maharashtra at their branch offices at Relief Road, Ahmedabad as also in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The said bank agreed to issue a guarantee for and on behalf of the assessee on his executing an irrevocable agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said amount constituted an asset of the assessee on the valuation date and was includible as such in the computation of his net wealth for the assessment year 1981-82. Being of that view the WTO included the amount in question in the computation of net wealth of the assessee and subjected the same to the levy of wealth-tax accordingly. 4. On appeal, the learned CWT(A) agreed with the views of the WTO and held that the assessee was in possession of the amount in question as of right and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 17,08,500 was his property on the relevant valuation date. The learned CWT(A) was of the opinion that the principle, aid down in the case of CWT v. Bishwanath Chatterjee [1976] 103 ITR 536 (SC), relied upon by the assessee for his benefit, made the assessee the owner of Rs. 17,08,500 on the valuation date and, therefore, the WTO was justified in including the said amount in the net wealth of the assessee. Holding thus the CWT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal. Hence this appeal before us. 5. Before us Mr. K.C. Patel, the learned counsel for the assessee, has vehemently urged that the approach of the authorities below in the present case was not at all justified in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments advanced before us the question that arises for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case it can be said that the amount of Rs. 17,08,500 being an asset belonged to the assessee as on the relevant valuation date so as to be includible in the computation of his net wealth for assessment year 1981-82. This question which has been raised through various grounds of appeal necessarily requires us to consider the meaning and scope of the expression "belonging to the assessee" as occurring in the definition of 'net wealth' under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 8. The expression "belonging to" appears to have been the subject-matter of serious consideration of the Supreme Court on several occasions. It appears that in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur AIR 1965 SC 1923 the meaning of the phrase 'belonging to' was considered and it was observed by the Supreme Court that "though the expression 'belonging to' was capable of denoting an absolute title, it was nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense. Full possession of an interest less than that of full ownership could also be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee on 6-2-1981, that could be so received by him after filing the undertaking which was to the effect that the said amount would be refunded to the Punjab Government as and when required by them, depending upon the result of the suit filed by K. Yuvraj in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh. That apart, the receipt of the said amount by the assessee on 6-2-1981 further carried an obligation of filing the bank guarantee which the assessee did. It is further gathered that the bank had issued the guarantee against the amount in question being deposited with it. It is not too difficult to infer from these facts that no doubt that the assessee can be said to be possessing the amount in question but for all practical purposes, by virtue of such possession he was simply a custodian of the property up to the time it was finally released in his favour by the Punjab Government. He could not have used the said property according to his own liking and will. Therefore, the very element of ownership which is there in the meaning of "belonging", despite the distinction pointed out by their Lordships in the cases referred to above, was missing in the possession of the assessee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
