2002 (9) TMI 48 - HC - Wealth-tax

High Court affirms inclusion of motor cars, land, and factory building in company's wealth tax assessment.

KN. Chari Rubber And Plastics Limited Versus Commissioner of Wealth-Tax

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to include motor cars, land, and the factory building in the net wealth of the appellant-company for wealth ... '1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the motor cars, land at Pallikaranai village and factory building at Avadi are includible in the net wealth of the appellant-company despite the fact that all of them were acquired out of own funds of the appellant-company and such inclusion is against the intention of the Legislature? - 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'motor cars' occurring in section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983, leaves no ambiguity in interpretation and as such, motor cars forming part of plant and machinery in the block of assets for depreciation under section 32 of the Income tax Act 1961, as part of the plant and machinery, should be construed as motor cars simpliciter as specified for the purpose of section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983? - 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the factory building at Avadi cannot be treated as business asset used for the purpose of business of the appellant-company as per interpretation of section 40(3)(vi), in the facts and circumstances of the case?' - We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal as also of the statutory authorities who have rightly held that the factory building was not to be excluded while considering the assets required to be valued for the purpose of wealth-tax. - All questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Issues:1. Inclusion of motor cars, land, and factory building in the net wealth of the appellant-company.2. Interpretation of the expression 'motor cars' in the Finance Act, 1983.3. Treatment of the factory building at Avadi as a business asset.Issue 1: Inclusion of Assets in Net WealthThe High Court addressed whether the Tribunal was correct in including the value of motor cars, land at Pallikaranai village, and the factory building at Avadi in the net wealth of the appellant-company. The appellant argued that these assets were acquired using their own funds and should not be considered for wealth tax. However, the Court found that all these assets, including non-agricultural lands and motor cars, were subject to wealth tax as specified in Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The Court emphasized that the legislative intention was to include such assets in the taxable wealth, and there was no justification for their exclusion based on the source of funds or their classification under the Income-tax Act.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Motor Cars'Regarding the interpretation of the term 'motor cars' in the Finance Act, 1983, the Court examined whether motor cars forming part of plant and machinery should be treated differently for wealth tax purposes. The appellant contended that motor cars used as part of plant and machinery should not be separately valued. However, the Court upheld that motor cars, along with lands, were indeed taxable assets under the Act. The Court clarified that the specific mention of motor cars in the legislation indicated their inclusion in the net wealth, irrespective of their usage as part of plant and machinery for depreciation under the Income-tax Act.Issue 3: Treatment of Factory BuildingThe Court also analyzed the treatment of the factory building at Avadi as a business asset. The appellant argued that since the company's memorandum of association mentioned leasing properties as an object, the factory building should be excluded from wealth tax assessment. However, the Court noted that the factory was not being used by the appellant for its business activities. Instead, the building was leased out to a lessee who conducted manufacturing operations. As the appellant did not engage in manufacturing and accounted for rental income separately, the Court concluded that the factory building was rightly included in the assessable wealth for wealth tax purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to include the factory building was upheld, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant.In conclusion, the High Court answered all questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the inclusion of motor cars, lands, and the factory building in the net wealth of the appellant-company for wealth tax assessment.