1990 PLP (Trib (PTD)

MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).‑‑‑These are three wealth‑tax appeals filed by the Department against the order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth‑tax (Appeals) Zone‑III, Karachi dated 16th July, 1986 for the assessment years 1981‑82 to 1983‑

84. For all the three years the sole grievance of the Department is with regard to the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the wealth‑tax payable by the assessee for each year under consideration was to be deducted from the gross wealth for the same year as a debt owed by the assessee. While giving this finding the learned CIT(Appeals) relied on a decision of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal in WTAs Nos. 49 -50/KB of 1982‑83 dated 30‑9‑1985 but it is pointed out on behalf of the 1cpartment that a contrary finding is contained in other decisions of this Tribunal which may now be followed. This larger Bench was in fact constituted in order to resolve some apparently conflicting decisions of various Division Benches of this Tribunal. The same findings as in the decision relied upon by the CWT(Appeals) were also given by the Tribunal in WTAs Nos. 73 to 77/KB of 1972‑73 dated 4‑10‑1974, WTAs Nos. 105‑106/KB of 1973‑74 dated 16‑7‑1975 and WTAs Nos. 151‑152/KB of 1973‑74 dated 25‑7‑1975. On the other hand there is another decision of this Tribunal reported as 1988 PTD 582 in which a different view was taken and it was held that the current wealth tax liability was not to be deducted from gross wealth of the same year for purposes of computing net wealth of the assessee for that year. The same view has also been adopted in this Tribunal's two other decisions reported as 1989 P T D 10 and 1989 P'TD

16. Since the controversy in the instant appeals is also involved in the Departmental Appeals WTA No. 331 /KB of 19Sfi‑87 (Assessment year 1983‑84) and WTAs Nos. 519‑520/KB of 1986‑87 (Assessment years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82) these Departmental appeals were also fixed for hearing together with the appeals in the instant case and the points being common, the learned D.R. and the learned counsel for the assessees took up the arguments in all the three cases jointly. The matter centers round the definition of "net wealth" in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Wealth‑tax Act, 1963 which reads as under:‑‑‑ "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date including assets required to be included in leis yet wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate; value of 011 the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date other than‑‑ (i) debts which under Section 6 are not to be taken into account; and (ii) debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred in relation to, any asset in respect of which wealth tax is not payable under this Act." In the instant case the Wealth-tax Officer hid computed the wealth tax liability of the assessee at Rs. 750 for each of the assessment, years 1981‑82 to 1983‑84 vide indentical orders dated 31‑5‑1984. There is no mention in the assessment orders of the outstanding tax liability for any earlier years or of the same years having been claimed by the assessee but it appears that the issue of wealth‑tax liability being a debt owed for the same year was raised by the assessee before the CWT(Appeals) who in his brief finding on the issue wrote as under:‑‑‑ "Regarding the claim of wealth tax as a debt owed the arguments of the A.R. arc valid and the claim is allowed following the ratio of decisions b5 the learned Tribunal in WTAs Nos. 49‑50/KB of 1982‑83 dated 30‑9 1985." In the case relied upon by the learned CWT(Appeals) (which in fact related to several years) the assessee while filing the wealth‑tax return(s) did not claim liabilities relating to the payment of income‑tax, wealth‑tax and gift tax etc. The WTO, therefore, did not consider the matter at all but subsequently while deciding the assessee's appeals the CWT(Appeals) relied on number of Income- tax Appellate Tribunal decisions and judgments of Indian Courts and directed that the tax liabilities should be allowed as debts owed on the valuation dates. It was contended by the Department before the Tribunal that the assessee itself did not claim any tax liability and it was therefore not possible for the Wealth‑tax officer to visualize the said liabilities. It was also contended that the relevant provisions in the Indian wealth‑tax law were different and the Indian judgments could therefore not be relied upon. Deciding the Departmental appeals the Tribunal in that case noted that according to section 2(m) of the Wealth‑tax Act. debts owed by the assessee were to be excluded from his wealth as on the valuation date. The Tribunal observed that at the time of filing of the return(s) the assessee may not know the definite taxes which he maybe required to pay and it may, therefore, not be possible for the assessee to claim the tax liability m the relevant return. The Tribunal observed that it would, therefore, be fair if "for purposes of working out the net valuation under Section 2(m) the liability for payment of taxes is allowed even if the same is determined or ascertained after the wealth‑tax assessment is completed". While giving this finding the Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in I.T.As. Nos. 60/63‑64/CC‑II dated 10‑1‑1973. A portion of this earlier order was also reproduced in the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal decision where it had been inter alia observed that "net wealth has to be computed after deducting the wealth tax liability for the year in question." The finding of the CWT(Appeals) in the instant case is contested by the Department and it was contended by the learned D.R. that the wealth tax liability for the assessment year for which an assessment was made could not validly be treated as a "debt owed" for that assessment year because the liability arose only after the net wealth as on the relevant valuation date had been determined. It was contended that since the liability of wealth tax followed the determination of the assessee's net wealth as on the relevant valuation date, it could not be considered as a liability for a debt owed on that valuation date. It was further pointed out that practically also it was difficult to arrive at the net taxable wealth of an assessee in such a situation because the wealth would stand modified/remodified an infinite number of times when an attempt was made to deduct the wealth tax liability of that year from the gross wealth of the same year. Furthermore, the learned D.R. relied very heavily on the decisions of this Tribunal reported as 1988 PTD 582, 1989 PTD 10 and 1989 PTD 16 in which it has been held that in computing the net wealth of an assessee for a particular assessment year the wealth tax liability for that year would not be considered as a debt owed and would not, therefore be deductible from the gross assets. The learned counsel for e assessee on the other hand maintained that the earlier decisions of this tribunal, to which a reference has already been made above, laid down the correct law in so far as in these decisions it had been inter alia held that the wealth tax liability pertaining to an assessment year would be considered as a debt owed on the valuation date relevant to that assessment year. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the decisions of the Indian Supreme Court reported as ITR 175 (1984) page 1, ITR 145 (1984) Page 7 and ITR 145 (1984) page 11 and argued that the wealth tax liability for any assessment year got crystallised on the relevant valuation date and was therefore a "debt owed" by the assessee on that date. It was also contended that contrary to the Department's view, computation of net wealth for any particular assessment year would not pose any practical difficulty while treating the wealth tax for that year as a debt owed for the same year. The learned counsel pointed out in this connection that the Indian Central Board of Revenue had, a long time ago, laid down a formula for calculating an assessee's net wealth in the given situation. The learned counsel also gave his own calculation to show that the computation of net wealth was not difficult if the law was interpreted according to the assessee's view and that accuracy could be ensured upto a difference of a few paisas which could easily be ignored.

2. The arguments of both the sides have been considered as also the various Court decisions cited in their support. As far as the various decisions are concerned, however, it seems that in the cases supporting the arguments for the assessee the basic issue involved was not the specific question which concerns us here viz. whether the wealth tax liability for a particular assessment year is a "debt owed" on the valuation date relevant to the same assessment year. It is true, of course, that by implication or in passim? it has thus been held in several decisions but for instance in the Tribunal's decision relied upon by the learned CWT(Appeals) in the instant case the basic finding, as we have already noted, was that for working out the net wealth the liability for payment of the various taxes should be allowed even if the same is determined after the wealth‑tax assessment is completed. Similarly the specific issue now before us was again not the basic or main issue in the various Indian Supreme Court judgments cited by the learned counsel for the assessee which incidentally were all passed on the same date viz. 21st October, 1983 and by the same Hon'ble Judges viz. R.S. Pathak and E.S. Venkataramiah. Thus, in the case of Commissioner of Wealth -tax, Gujrat v. Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta (ITR 145 (1984) page 11) the assessment year involved was the year 1964‑65 and the liabilities involved were income‑tax liabilities for the years 1962‑63 to 1964‑65, wealth‑tax liability for the assessment year 1964‑65 and gift tax liability for the assessment years 1962‑63 to 1964‑

65. The question really considered by the Hon'ble Court in the judgment was whether these liabilities were to be deducted from gross assets as on the relevant valuation date although the various relevant assessment orders or rectification orders were passed after the valuation date. The Supreme Court of India decided these questions in the affirmative and the main thrust of the orders was that various liabilities on a given valuation date are to be deducted from the gross wealth, even if these are determined on a date subsequent to the valuation date. The same was the burden of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Wealth‑tax. Gujarat v. Vadilal Lallubhai (ITR 145 (1984) page 7). Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Wealth‑tax, Madras v. K.S.N. Bhatt (ITR 145 (1984) page 1) the same principle was extended to mean that if on a subsequent date the tax liabilities are found to be "nil" as on the valuation date, no deduction would be allowable for the purposes of wealth tax even though the position as on the valuation date was that certain tax liability had stood determined as on that date. The issue now before us has, on the other hand, been dealt with very specifically in the comparatively more recent decisions of this Tribunal which have been relied upon on the side of the Department. Thus, in the decision reported as 1988 PTD (Trib.) 582 it was noted that the "valuation date" extended to the last fraction of a second of the said date (i.e. till mid‑night) and the corresponding wealth‑tax liability would be determined only on the expiry of that last fraction of second. It has thus been held that the wealth‑tax liability for the assessment year relevant to the said valuation date could not be considered as a debt owed on that valuation date. I respectfully consider this reasoning to be very logical because there seems to be no doubt about the fact that the wealth‑tax liability for any assessment year can come into existence only after the net wealth as on the relevant valuation date has become crystallised and thus it cannot be considered as a "debt owed" on the said valuation date. A similar conclusion was also reached by the Tribunal in the' case reported as 1989 PTD 10 in which a reference was also made to the practical difficulty which would arise in the computation of net wealth if the wealth tax liability for the same assessment year were considered as a debt owed on the relevant valuation date. In this connection I would add that although the learned counsel for the assessee is right in pointing out that even by treating current wealth‑tax liability as a debt owed, accuracy with a margin of only about a few paisas can be achieved, I would think that an interpretation which does not result in complete accuracy in calculation of net wealth would remain somewhat suspect. In the case reported as 1989 PTD 16 the Tribunal also inter alia considered the Karachi High Court judgment in C.W.T. v. Noor Bai Ibrahim 1988 PTD 677 and concluded that this case was basically only an authority for the proposition that income‑tax and wealth tax liabilities amount to "debt owed". The Tribunal then referred to the Lahore High Court judgment in the case of C.W.T. v. Fauzia Mughis 1988 PTD 629 in which it was already held that whereas arrears of taxes due, including wealth‑tax, would constitute "debt owed" the liability for the year under charge would not be a permissible deduction in computing net wealth of an assessee. Again I am in respectful agreement with the view of this Tribunal in the decision reported as 1989 PTD 16 that among the Pakistan Superior Court judgments the Fozia Mughis's case still remains the most authoritative in the matter because it specifically deals with the precise question at present before us. In the Fozia Mughis case the Hon'ble Lahore High Court has inter alia observed as follows:‑‑ "On the principles and for the reasons recorded earlier; such deduction, if it has remained in arrears will, according to us constitute a debt owed by the assessee and its deduction was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. No doubt in the year under charge its deduction will not be permissible but once that liability has accrued and debt for that year has become a debt owed by the assessee then while computing the net assets of subsequent years, the deduction of this debt will have to be made by them on principle of debt owed or on the principle that by that debt the opening balance of the assets of the subsequent year automatically get reduced." It would be seen from the underlined portion above that wealth‑tax liability for an assessment year cannot be considered to accrue and become a "debt owed" in the year under charge viz. on the valuation date relevant to the same assessment year. This basic principle has, of course, been further explained and elaborated in the Tribunal's decision reported as 1988 PTD 582 with which my respectful agreement has already been expressed earlier.

3. Before parting with the matter I would also refer to another fact which can be considered to further support the view adopted above. Section 46 of the Wealth‑tax Act empowers the Central Board of Revenue to make rules to provide for the manner in which value of assets may be determined. Rule 8 of the Wealth‑tax Rules lays down the mode of valuation of various assets and its sub- rule(9) deals with the method of "bulk valuation" for the determination of the value of an assessee's net wealth. The said sub‑rule contains detailed illustrations of the manner in which net wealth is to be arrived at on the basis of bulk valuation but is does not provide for allowing the wealth‑tax due for the same year as a deduction from the gross assets for the said year. In my opinion, it is not here a matter of an omission of only one of many possible examples because if wealth‑tax for the same year is necessarily to be deducted from the assets as on the relevant valuation date, any rule laying down the method of bulk valuation would necessarily provide for the current wealth tax liability as a deduction from assets. In this connection reference may be made to "Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes" where in the Chapter on General Principles of Interpretation a reference has been made to the observation of James and Mellish, Judges, who have observed that "in case of doubts regarding construction of an Act, recourse may be had to the rules which have been made .under the authority of the Act, and if we find that in the rules any particular construction has been put on the Act, that it is our duty to adopt and follow that construction". While the author admittedly expresses his own strong reservations regarding too literal an application of this principle, I am respectfully of the view that the Wealth tax Rules framed under specific powers regarding the determination of mode of valuation of various assets can at least be considered as throwing some additional light on the issue before us. Of course, as I have already concluded earlier, m my view, the relevant provisions of the Wealth‑tax Act itself also do not provide that wealth‑tax liability for an assessment year is to be considered as a "debt owed" on the valuation date relevant to the same assessment year. In the instant case, therefore, it is held that the current wealth tax liability for the assessment years 1981‑82, 1982‑83 and 1983‑84 (taken separately) is not to be deducted from the assets of the assessee as on the valuation date corresponding to each of the said three assessment year; The three Departmental appeals thus succeed as above.

5. I have the benefit of going through the well‑considered and reasoned order proposed to be delivered by the learned Accountant Member, Mirza Muhammad Wasim. I am entirely in agreement with the reasoning as well as finding arrived at lay the learned Accountant Member. However, I would like to add a few lines.

6. Section 2(m) of the Wealth tax Act defines net wealth to be the amount of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, after deducting the value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date. In other words, the net wealth is the difference between the gross assets belonging to the assessee and all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date. According to Section 9 of the Wealth tax Act, wealth tax is to be charged for every financial year with effect from the first day of July, 1963, in respect of the, net wealth on the corresponding valuation date at the rates specified in the schedule. The question which requires determination in these appeals is whether the amount of wealth tax payable by an assessee in accordance with the Schedule to the Wealth‑tax Act, on his net wealth is a debt owed and is viable to be deducted from the wealth of the assessee in the same year in respect of which it is payable. The question whether the wealth tax payable by an assessee on his net wealth in a particular year constitutes a debt owed was considered at length by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of commissioner of Wealth tax v. Mst. Fauzia Mughis, reported in 1988 PTD 629, wherein it was held that provision for wealth tax liability in respect of earlier year constituted a debt owed and was deductible in determining the net wealth of the I subsequent year. The above finding of the Lahore High Court was relied upon by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in deciding the case of C.W.T. v. Mst. Noor Bai reported in 1988 PTD 677, wherein relying on the finding of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Fauzia Mughis it was held as under:‑‑ "If the amount shown as liability of the income‑tax could be allowed as a debt owed for adjustment of the gross wealth under section 2(m) of the Act for the purposes of computation of net wealth of assessee we do not see any reason to disallow the amount shown as a liability of wealth tax under the Wealth tax Act as a debt owed within the meaning of that Section 2(m). We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given in the above cases and accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative."

7. The relevant portion from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dealt with the issues involved in this appeal on which reliance was placed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh is reproduced as under:‑‑ "In some cases the Tribunal has also allowed deduction of the Wealth tax which had remained in arrears while computing net assets for the subsequent years. On the principles and for the reasons recorded earlier, such deduction, if it has remained in arrears will according to us, constitute a debt owed by the assessee and its deduction was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. No doubt, in the year under charge its deduction was not permissible but once that liability has accrued and debt for that year has become a debt owed by the assessee, then while computing the net assets of subsequent years, the deduction of this debt will have to be made both on principle of debt owed or on the principle that by that debt the opening balance of the assets of the subsequent year automatically gets reduced. The answer to this question regarding adjustment of such deduction is consequently answered in the affirmative."

8. From the above observation and finding of the Sindh High Court and of the High Court of Lahore the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that the wealth tax payable in respect of a particular charge year was a debt owed in that very year and was to be deducted from the wealth of the assessee in that very year is without any substance and carries no weight inasmuch as the High Courts of Sindh and Lahore while deciding the above issue referred to them have very clearly held that the wealth tax was to be treated as a debt owed but was not to be deducted in the charge year and its deduction was to be made for computing the net assets of the assessee for the subsequent year.

9. The above contention of the learned A.R. of the respondent is also not tenable in view of another factor. In view of the provisions of the Wealth tax Act, all the debts owed are to be deducted from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee for determining his net wealth/assets. While deducting the debts owed from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee the amount of wealth tax payable by the assessee cannot be determined or computed so as to arrive at a figure of the wealth tax for deducting the same as a debt owed from the gross wealth/assets. The wealth tax payable by an assessee can be determined and computed only when the. net wealth/assets of an assessee are determined after deducting all the debts owed/liabilities from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee. However, once the wealth tax is determined and computed in accordance with the Schedule provided, in the Wealth tax Act, the question will be with regard to the deduction of the wealth tax. Even if it be presumed that the wealth tax in respect of a particular charge year becomes a debt owed in that very charge year, then its deduction will not be possible inasmuch as according to the provisions of Section 2(m) all debts owed are to be deducted from the gross wealth/assets. Determination and computation of wealth tax necessarily implies and pre supposes that gross wealth/assets of an assessee have been converted into his net wealth/assets and that it will not be possible to take into consideration his gross wealth/assets. Thus, the wealth tax so determined cannot be deducted from the net wealth/assets as it will be in clear disregard of the provisions (if section 2(m) of the Wealth tax Act, which provides all debts owed to be deducted from the gross wealth/assets. The wealth tax can also not be deucted from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee in a particular charge year inasmuch as while ducting the: debts owed from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee for arriving at his net wealth/assets it will not be possible to calculate/compute the wealth tax inasmuch as according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Wealth tax Act, the tame is to be charged on the net wealth/assets on the valuation date of every year. This problem can, however, be overcome very easily if we accept the proposition that wealth tax becomes a debt owed not in the charge year but in the subsequent year in view of the fact that it becomes due at the last fraction of the end of the valuation date and while determining and computing the net Wealth/assets of an assessee for the subsequent year, the determinate and specific amount of the wealth tax for the previous year can be deducted as a debt owed from the gross wealth/assets of an assessee.

10. In view of the above discussion, I find myself in agreement with the view arrived at by the learned Accountant Member, Mirza Muhammad Wasim and concur with his findings. MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑I concur with the views of my learned brothers Mr. Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Accountant Member (Lahore) and Mr. Saiyid Saeed Ashhad, Judicial Member (Karachi). FARHAT ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑I have the privilege of going through the orders proposed by my brothers Mr. Mirza Muhammad Wasim the learned Accountant Member, Lahore with whom Mr. Manzurul Haque, my learned brother the Accountant Member at Karachi has concurred and the order proposed by Saiyid Saeed Ashhad my brother the learned Judicial Member at Karachi with whom Mr. Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui my brother the learned Judicial Member has concurred. However, I think that I owe a duty to the learned Members of the Bar who have taken real pains in presenting their case before us at some length. When I decided the case reported as 1988 PTD 582 Mr. Faruq Ali had appeared before me and he did not invite my attention to any decided case of this Tribunal. On the contrary Mr. Muhammad Farid relied upon a decision of this Tribunal recorded in WTA No. 88/KB of 1982‑83 dated 26‑5‑1986. My learned brother Mr. Manzurul Haque was sitting with me and he is also signatory of aforesaid decision. Subsequently I disposed of the issue involved in these appeals once again in two decisions recorded on 18‑9‑1988 and 24‑9‑1988 which are reported as 1989 PTD (Trib.) 16 and 1989 PTD (Trib.)

10. In these cases Mr. I.N. Pasha, appeared for the respondent and appellant respectively and yet my attention was not invited to the earlier decisions of this Tribunal. My learned brother Mr. Junejo Mohammad Iqbal has been signatory to these decisions. However, when these appeals have been argued before us in number of decisions, this Tribunal have been relied upon by the learned Members of the Bar. The first decision relied upon was written by Mr. Muhammad Salim Chaudhry the then learned J.M. on 10‑1‑1973 with whom Mr. Khalifa Salahuddin the then learned Accountant Member concurred, in AAC/16/63/64/CC/11. This decision has been followed in another decision recorded in WTAs Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,/KB of 1972‑73 by a Division Bench of this Tribunal on 10‑10‑1974 by Mr. Muhammad Mazhar Ali, the then Judicial Member and now Mr. Justice Muhammad Mazhar Ali; the Judge of High Court of Sindh at Karachi and it was again concurred with by Khalifa Salahuddin the then Learned Accountant Member. Third decision relied upon has been recorded by Mr. M.Z. Farrukh the then learned Accountant Member on 5‑8‑1975 with whom Mr. Justice Muhammad Mazhar Ali the then learned Judicial Member concurred. The fourth decision relied upon was recorded by Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Khan the then learned Accountant Member on 30‑9‑1985 in WTAs Nos. 49/50/51/52/53/54/KB of 1982‑

83. It is pertinent to note that I am signatory to aforesaid decision and this fact has been emphatically asserted before us. However, let me mention at this juncture also that the decision relied upon by Mr. Muhammad Farid in case reported as 1988 PTD (Trib.) 582 was written by Mr. Ghulam Sadiq the then learned Accountant Member and I was also signatory to it. Thus, I have signed two conflicting decisions written by Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Khan and Mr. Ghulam Sadiq the then learned Accountant Members. Thus, I owe an apology to the learned Members of the Bar for slackness on my part. Nevertheless legally speaking it is the duty of the Members of the Bar to bring to the notice of a Court or Tribunal all the relevant case‑law. Now as far as the three decisions reported as 1988 PTD (Trib.) 582; 1989 (Trib.) 10 and 1989 PTD (Trib.) 16 are concerned they have been written by me and in these cases I had an opportunity of giving my considered opinion being the author of all these decisions. I, therefore, very humbly stick to my views expressed in all the decisions which have been now adopted by this larger Bench. I therefore also concurr with all my learned brothers. Now as far as the decisions of Indian Supreme Court are concerned I dealt with one of them at page 16 of the decision reported as 1989 PTD (Trib.) 10 with the following observation: ".....Now as far as the case of Setu (supra) is concerned, surely it commands highest respect and has great persuasive value but for the reasons given above we, with due respect follow the case of Fauzia Mughis (supra) which is more or less binding on us.." With due respect, I relied upon the aforesaid passage regarding rest of the cases of Indian Supreme Court also which have been mentioned by learned Accountant Member in his order. However, I would like to add that the before their Lordships of Indian Supreme Court the concept of valuation date was not presented so extensively and logically as was done in the decision reported as 1988 PTD (Trib.) 582 in the following words: "In order to illustrate our point we can say that if we determine the net wealth and thus tax liability of an assessee at 11‑55 p.m. by deducing aggregate value of the "debts owed" from the aggregate value of all the assets, we will be leaving room for the argument that the assessee could have disposed of some of his assets in these five minutes in order to bring down the net wealth. The correct interpretation, therefore, would be that the valuation date would expire at the last fraction of second on the mid‑night of 30th June and 1st July. Philospohically speaking it must be correct that the last fraction of second could not be conceived for the simple reason that the time is like a following stream of water. However, the end of one date or day and beginning of another is a logical necessity. However, a gap is also imaginary for the same reason between the end and a beginning. The date or day would, therefore, commence at the beginning of another date or day. Thus, the assessee would have the benefit of last fraction of second. The wealth tax liability, therefore, would be determined on the expiry of the last fraction of second of the night of the 30th June and beginning of first fraction of second of the night of 1st July. Consequently the argument that the wealth tax liability could be determined on the valuation date does not appear to be logically correct." Moreover, before their Lordships of Indian Supreme Court the immediate advantage of getting the deduction of tax liability in a current year has been sacrificed at the cost of the maximum benefit which aforesaid concept of valuation date offers to an assessee. This aspect of the issue involved has been emphasised in 1989 PTD 10 at page 15 in the following words: "....In our judgment if an assessee is given an opportunity till the last fraction of second to reduce his assets or increase his liabilities it would be more beneficial to him rather than to allow the wealth tax liability to be deducted on the last fraction of second in order to arrive at the net wealth." Thus, the interpretation given in aforesaid three decisions of this Tribunal is strictly in accordance with the very well‑known cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes. Since all the Members of larger Bench have arrived at a unanimous conclusion it is hereby ordered that wealth tax liability is not open to deduction from the assets of the assessee as on valuation date corresponding to each of the said assessment years of 1981‑82 1982‑83 and 1983‑

84. Thus, all the three departmental appeals stand allowed M.B.A./895/T Appeals allowed.