1997 PLP 559 (PTD)

SYED SHAH MUHAMMED QUADRI, J.

The following questions of law are referred to us for opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that an amount of Rs.4 lakhs being the fair market value of properties transferred by the assessee to his wife, is not includible in his wealth under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in omitting to sustain the inclusion of at least Rs.1,20,000 in the net wealth of the assessee representing the debt due from his wife?" For the assessment year 1977-78,. the assessee paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000 to his wife, Sint. Basheerunnisa Begum, towards payment of her Meher amount. She invested the same and purchased house properties in Kachiguda and Khairatabad. The value of the said properties was included in the net wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act as Rs.4,00,

000. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the Wealth Tax Officer was not correct in including the value of the house properties belonging to the assessee's wife in the net wealth of the assessee. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.4,00,000 was ordered to be deleted. In the appeal arising out of the assessment of the wealth for the assessment year 1975-76, the Tribunal by its order, dated June 7, 1982, held that the sum of Rs.1,20,000 given by the assessee to his wife as Meher amount, cannot be considered as transfer without consideration to his wife. In view of that order, the appellate authority held that the question of inclusion of the value of the property acquired by his wife did not arise and directed that the amount of Rs.4,00,000 be deleted. Against the order of the appellate authority, the Wealth Tax Officer filed an appeal before the Tribunal It was contended before the Tribunal that the earlier order of the Tribunal, dated April 23, 1983, was not accepted by the Tribunal and that an alternative plea was taken that at least the amount of Rs.1,20,000 should be included. That was also rejected by the Tribunal as being untenable. However, the said two questions are referred. In view of the fact that payment of Meher to the wife by the husband during his lifetime is held to be not a transfer without consideration in Ghiasuddin Babu Khan v. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 707 (AP), it follows that A the property purchased from out of the said amount cannot be included in the assets of the assessee for the purpose of wealth tax under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the first question is answered in the negative (sic) i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In so far as the second question is concerned, it may be observed that the basis of the second question is not laid down either in the order of assessment or in the order of the appellate authority or the order of the Tribunal. Once it is held that Rs.1,20,000 is paid to the wife of the assessee towards Meher amount, the said amount cannot be treated as the debt due from his wife to the assessee. Therefore, this question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered. No costs. M.B.A./1183/FC Reference answered.