2001 PLP 1331 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus N. NAZEERUDEEN
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1331 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 244 I T R 233 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus N. NAZEERUDEEN |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1331 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1331 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 244 I T R 233 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1331 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus N. NAZEERUDEEN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Net wealth‑‑‑Lottery prize‑‑‑Dispute regarding ownership of Lottery. Prize pending before High Court ‑‑Assessee allowed to draw one‑half of amount by giving Bank guarantee pending litigation on condition that amount to be refunded if he fails in litigation‑‑‑Prize money did not accrue in relevant year‑‑‑Not includible. The assessee had made a claim to a Lottery Prize, but it was disputed by one A who also claimed to be entitled to that prize. The litigation which commenced at the sub‑Court at Vellore ended in favour of the assessee at the level of that Court. An appeal having been preferred by A, the matter was taken to the High Court and by an interim order made by the High Court, the assessee was allowed to withdraw. one‑half of the amount against a bank guarantee or. condition that the assessee in the event of failing before the High Court would be liable to refund the amount drawn and in case' the assessee failed' to do so, the bank would be liable to make the payment. On a reference of the question whether the value of the lottery prize was includible in the assessee's net wealth: Held, that the prize amount had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant year. CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) applied. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee. .
Judgment & Decree
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.‑‑‑The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, relating to the assessment year 1977‑78, arising out of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act is as to "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 22,68,000 is includible in the net wealth of the assessee as an asset belonging to him as on the valuation date March 31, 1977, relevant for the assessment year 1977‑78 under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957"? The amount referred to in the question is the value of the lottery prize, to which the assessee had made a claim, but was disputed by one Annamalai, who also claimed to be entitled to that prize. The litigation which commenced at the sub‑Court at Vellore ended in favour of the assessee at the level of that Court. An appeal having been preferred by Annamalai, the matter was taken to the High Court and by the interim orders; made by this Court, the assessee was allowed to withdraw one‑half of the amount against the bank guarantee on condition that the assessee in the event of failing before the High Court will be liable to refund the amount drawn and in case the appellant fails to do so, the bank will be liable to make the payment. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the amount had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant year. That decision of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524, held that the amount of additional compensation awarded to the owner of the land, for the compulsory acquisition of the land, which amount had been allowed to be drawn against the bank 'guarantee pending the decision in appeal cannot be regarded as having accrued to the assessee even before the final decision. The interest of the Revenue is amply safeguarded by the undertaking which the assesee had given before the, Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) on January 17, 1985 to offer for income‑tax and wealth tax assessments as and when the lottery amount was received by him after the final orders of the Court. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. M.B.A./468/FC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.