2001 PLP 2530 (PTD)
WEALTH TAX OFFICER Versus RAM DEEN SINGH
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2530 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | M. C. Agarwal and S. Rafat Alam, JJ |
| Parties | WEALTH TAX OFFICER Versus RAM DEEN SINGH |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2530 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2530 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: M. C. Agarwal and S. Rafat Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2530 (PTD) (WEALTH TAX OFFICER Versus RAM DEEN SINGH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior Advocate for the assessee respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Net wealth
HUF
Asset of individual or HUF
Inclusion .of value of agricultural land in net wealth of individual
Finding by AAC that land belonged to HUF
Deletion by AAC of two more additions resulting in net wealth below taxable limit
Inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth
Question referred academic-- Returned unanswered
Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss.5 &
27. The assessee's net wealth, in the assessment year 1971-72, included the value of agricultural land at Rs.1,95,
000. The assessee's contention before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the agricultural land did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention and also deleted the additions of Rs.70,000 and Rs.68,680 which related to investment in money-lending business and cash and ornaments. By that exclusion, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit. Hence; the order of assessment was quashed by the Commissioner and this had been upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference: Held, that since the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal's finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments, the inclusion of the value of the agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth, after exemption under section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, would be below the taxable limits [Since the question referred was of mere academic interest, the Court declined to answer it and returned it answered]. Prakash Krishna for the Commissioner: Bharat Ji Agarwal for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that since the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal's finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments, the inclusion of the value of the agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth, after exemption under section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, would be below the taxable limits [Since the question referred was of mere academic interest, the Court declined to answer it and returned it answered]. Prakash Krishna for the Commissioner: Bharat Ji Agarwal for the Assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the agricultural land in village Kotia Tehsil Bindki, District Fatehpur, belonged to the undivided family of the assessee and not to the assessee in his individual capacity?" We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior Advocate for the assessee respondent. The assessee is an individual and an assessment on him under the Wealth Tax Act, was trade for the assessment year 1971-72 as an individual. The total wealth was determined at Rs.1,91,
680. In that year net wealth up to Rs.1,50,000 was not taxable. The net wealth of the assessee included agricultural land valued at Rs.1,95,000, which according to the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his two sons and wife. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the agricultural land was the property of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. He also held that the investment in money-lending business (Rs.70,000) cash and ornaments (Rs.68,680) which were, included in the net wealth of the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual and belonged to the Hindu undivided family. By the exclusion of the aforesaid assets, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit and, therefore, the learned Commissioner quashed the assessment. This has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue has not challenged the Tribunal's finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments. Since these items stand excluded from the net wealth of the assessee, the inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth after exemption under section 5 of the Act, would be below the taxable limit. Therefore, in view of the other findings of the Tribunal, the question that has been referred for the opinion of this Court is merely of academic interest. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. The reference is returned unanswered. M.B.A./964/FC Answer declined.