9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Dhinda 20,000 . Total 57,000 It was, therefore, submitted before the WTO that the value of the above shares could not be included in the assessment of the assessee HUF. The WTO did not accept the claim. Of course, he also did not discuss the issue in his orders. He simply included their value in the above two assessment years. It is not necessary for us to deal with the question of valuation as that matter has been settled by the CWT (A), who has valued the above shares at Rs. 9,25,965 against which there is no grievance before us by either party. 2. The inclusion of the value of the shares in the assessments was confirmed by the CWT (A) with the following observations: "8. I find that the WTO did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case that when there was a change in the net wealth of an assessee during the valuation date itself, for example, by acquisition or transfer of assets on that date, it is the net wealth as it stood at the last moment of the valuation date that has to be adopted for purposes of assessment to wealth-tax. The court also held that s. 20 of the WT Act was not applicable to the case as that section provided for a case of partition of the joint family. The Court observed that the condition that there was a severance of the status of jointness is a pre-requisite for the application of s. 20, which is not the case in the case of partial partition as in the case of a partial partition there is no severance of the status of jointness. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the family. In other words, there was a change in the position in s. 171 as compared to the position prevailing under s. 25A of the Act of 1922. 8. The WT Act was enacted in 1957. The language contained in s. 20 of this Act was borrowed from the language of s. 25A of the Act of 1922. Obviously, therefore, the principle laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, applied to this section also. This is exactly what the Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Dwarka Nath. This was also the view of the ld. author A. C. Sampath Iyengar in his Commentary on Wealth-tax. Commenting on s. 20 of the WT Act, the ld. Author stated: "Unlike s. 171 of the IT Act, the present section does not deal with cases o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
