9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Assessment Year Date of Order Amount Date of Issue 1966-67 8th Sep., 1980 Rs. 12,174 21st May, 1983 1967-68 6th June, 1983 Rs. 6,703 7th May, 1983 1968-69 6th June, 1983 Rs. 7,517 7th June, 1983 1969-70 -do- Rs. 3,750 -do- 1967-68 8th July, 1983 Rs. 2,808 8th July, 1983 1968-69 -do- Rs. 3,115 -do- 1969-70 -do- Rs. 2,360 -do- 1973-74 5th March, 1982 Rs. 59,221 8th Nov., 1982 1972-73 29th March, 1978 Rs. 5,415 21st May, 1983 1973-74 18th March, 1983 Rs. 30,050 21st May, 1983 1976-77 21st May, 1983 Rs. 1,105 -do- 1977-78 -do- Rs. 101 -do- 1970-71 6th March, 1980 Rs. 3,100 6th March, 1980 1956-57 6th March, 1980 Rs. 4,311 -do- . . Rs.. 1,41,680 . Wealth Tax 1960-61 12th June, 1981 Rs. 911 . 1961-62 -do- Rs. 901 . 1962-63 -do- Rs. 1,137 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the valuation date having already included in a bank account no separate addition was called for. As regards the tax liabilities to be deducted as debt, he agreed with the counsel of the assessee that the liabilities towards the income tax, wealth tax and gift tax which crystallised on the valuation date determined in the assessment order to be deducted even though the assessment orders were formed after the valuation date. He allowed Rs. 6,75,962 as deductible debt in computing the taxable wealth of the assessee. 5. The learned Departmental Rep., Sri N.K. Saxena, submitted that the refund payable to the assessee on the valuation date should be treated as "asset" though refund vouchers were issued after the valuation date. In respect of the liability he strongly supported the orders of the WTO. 6. The learned counsel of the assessee, Sri K.K. Mondal, supported the order of the learned AAC arguing that on the basis of the following decisions of the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court the order of the learned AAC is unassailable: (1) CWT vs. K.S.N. Bhatt (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 273: (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC) (2) CWT vs. Lallubhai (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 277 : (1984) 145 ITR 7 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the large number of assessment years involved, we feel it may be that appeal had been filed against the order made by ITO and WTO before the valuation date. There may be also case, where the demands originally raised, before those rectified under s. 154, remained unpaid for more than 12 months. In both the circumstances no tax liability can be deducted of debt in computing the net wealth of the assessee in view of s. 2(m) (iii) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned AAC to enable the WTO make a fresh order after giving opportunities to the assessee. We direct the WTO to allow the tax liabilities if it was not disputed before the valuation date and it was not in arrears for more than 12 months before the valuation date. However, any excess demand raised under s. 154 from the original demand should be allowed as it appears from the statement filed the demand raised under s. 154 was within 12 months of the valuation date. Therefore, those cannot be in arrear for more than 12 months. However, if it is found if the orders under s. 154 are the subject matter of appeal before the valuation date excess demand cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund, if any, which would be available to the assessee in future and which could be treated as his asset on the valuation date. It appears to us that this opinion is in contradiction of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. K.S.N. Bhatt (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC). At page 4 their lordships had held rejecting the contention of the Tribunal that whether a debt was owed by the assessee must be examined with reference to the position obtaining on the valuation date, and that nothing happening subsequently would be considered in computing the net wealth. Their lordships rejecting the contention held that they were unable to agree with the view taken by the appellate Tribunal. Therefore, whether the exact amount of tax liability or the refund not known on the valuation date is not crucial issue. Any subsequent order can determine the exact amount of liability and the refund to be considered in computing the net wealth. Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court in (1982) 133 ITR 800 (Guj) held that r. 1B manifested the intention of legislature to exclude advance tax from the preview of the Wealth-tax. This view was not also concurred by the Madras High Court in (1985) 152 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
