9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd entitled to exemption. The second issue is whether the provisions of section 4(7) of the Act are attracted and third is the determination of the figure which has to be included in the net wealth of the assessee whether the sum of Rs. 25,230 paid to the society or the market value of the plot on the valuation date. 2. The assessee's case before the WTO was that the sum of Rs. 25,230 represented a " deposit " and hence exemption was allowable under section 5(1)(xxx). The WTO was however of the view that the provisions of section 4(7) of the same Act were applicable and the assessee was liable to be taxed on the market value of the said plot as he was the " owner ". The WTO determined the value of the plot at Rs. 1,60,000 by adopting a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership of the plot did not vest with the assessee and the sum of Rs. 25,230 paid to the society be treated as a " deposit " or in the alternative the taxable value of the plot be included at the same figure in the net wealth. 5. The learned D.R., on the other hand, strongly supported the orders passed by the tax authorities reiterating the reasons recorded by these authorities in rejecting the assessee's claim. It was, however, highlighted that the assessee was the " owner " for all intents and purposes and the provisions of section 4(7) were squarely applicable. The learned DR also referred to the definition of the term " assets " included in section 2(e) for the proposition that property of every description was covered and the asset th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plot or giving it on rent, he is for all intents and purposes an absolute owner. We also do not find any clause whereby he is to part with a portion of the sale proceeds to the society or to give to it any transfer charges in the event of its sale. In the final analysis we would hold that the sum of Rs. 25,230 represents the purchase price of the plot and is not a " deposit " within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxx) of the Act. The claim for the said exemption is accordingly rejected. 7. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel that only the amount paid to the society, viz., Rs. 25,230 be subjected to wealth-tax, we pine that this submission is also required to be rejected since what has to be included in the wealth is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
