1998 (1) TMI 64 - HC - Wealth-tax

Discretionary trust not liable for wealth tax under Rs. 1 lakh limit

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus Rekha And Dhanesh Trust

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus Rekha And Dhanesh Trust - [1998] 231 ITR 805, 145 CTR 281 Issues Involved:1. Liability of the assessee-trust to wealth-tax.2. Applicability of exemption limit under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.3. Interpretation of Section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act concerning discretionary trusts.4. Relevance of higher rate prescribed under Section 21(4) when net wealth is below the statutory limit.5. Legislative intent and interpretation of fiscal statutes.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of the Assessee-Trust to Wealth-Tax:The primary issue was whether the assessee-trust, being a discretionary trust, was liable to wealth-tax when its net wealth was below the statutory limit. The Tribunal held that the assessee-trust was not liable to tax as the return of wealth was below the statutory limit of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Applicability of Exemption Limit under Section 3:Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, provides for the charge of wealth-tax and specifies that no wealth-tax shall be payable where the net wealth does not exceed the prescribed exemption limit. The court noted that as per Schedule I, Part I, no wealth-tax was payable where the net wealth did not exceed Rs. 1 lakh, later raised to Rs. 1,50,000. Therefore, since there was no liability to pay tax where the wealth was within the exemption limit, no tax could be levied or recovered.3. Interpretation of Section 21(4) Concerning Discretionary Trusts:Section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act deals with the assessment of discretionary trusts where the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown. The provision mandates that wealth-tax shall be levied upon and recovered from the representative assessee in the same manner and to the same extent as it would be from an individual. The court emphasized that the extent of liability of the representative assessee is the same as that of an individual, thereby preserving the exemption limit.4. Relevance of Higher Rate Prescribed under Section 21(4):The court held that the higher rate prescribed under Section 21(4) becomes relevant only when the net wealth exceeds the exemption limit. Since the assessee-trust's net wealth was below the statutory limit, the question of applying the higher rate did not arise. The court clarified that the legislative intent was not to take away the exemption limit applicable to individuals merely because a higher rate was prescribed for discretionary trusts.5. Legislative Intent and Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes:The court discussed the principles of interpreting fiscal statutes, emphasizing that the intention of the Legislature should be ascertained from the language of the statute. The court rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Budget Speech and the Board's explanation, stating that the language of Section 21(4) was unambiguous. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in C. A. Abraham v. ITO and K. P. Varghese v. ITO, highlighting that the rule of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio must give way to the plain and unambiguous language of the statute.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust was not liable to tax as the return of wealth was below the statutory limit. The court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, thereby disposing of the reference with no order as to costs.