1982 (8) TMI 69 - AT - Wealth-tax

Commissioner corrects Wealth-tax Officer's errors in net wealth computation. Trust property not excluded, appeals dismissed.

The Commissioner found errors in the Wealth-tax Officer's deductions in computing the net wealth of the assessee, directing a reframing of orders for the ... Assessment Year, Net Wealth, Religious Trust Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') is erroneous and bad in law.2. Whether the property vested in the religious trust should be excluded from the wealth of the assessee and not taxed in the hands of the executors.Detailed Analysis:1. Erroneous and Bad in Law:The main issue for consideration in these appeals is whether the order of the Commissioner under section 25(2) is erroneous and bad in law. The Commissioner found that the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) had allowed incorrect deductions in computing the net wealth of the assessee. The WTO did not tax one-third value of the wealth in both movable and immovable properties in the hands of the executors, as the religious trust had a vesting interest in one-third share of the property according to a will executed by the testatrix in August 1951. The Commissioner set aside the WTO's orders and directed reframing the orders for the assessment years under appeal as per law.2. Property Vested in the Religious Trust:The learned Advocate General for the assessee argued that the property vested in the religious trust should be excluded from the wealth of the assessee and not taxed in the hands of the executors. He submitted that under the will and codicil executed by Smt. Bai Manek, the residue property was to be given to the religious trust, and therefore, it should not be taxed in the hands of the executors. He relied on several cases, including Navnitlal Sakarlal v. CWT and CIT v. Navnitlal Sakarlal, to support his argument.On the other hand, the learned departmental representative argued that the assessee had requested exemption for the income and wealth of the trust, but the CBDT allowed exemption only for the income, not the wealth. He contended that under section 19A(5) read with sub-section (6), the benefit is available only to the specific legatee and not the residuary legatee. He further submitted that complete distribution to the beneficiaries is required for the exclusion of such share from the wealth of the assessee.The Tribunal considered the material on record and noted the provisions of section 19A, which require complete distribution to the beneficiaries of the estate. The Tribunal observed that the will and codicil provided for the distribution of property, and the residue property was to be given to the religious trust. However, the Tribunal found that the administration of the estate had not reached a point where the residuary estate could be ascertained or was easily capable of being ascertained. Therefore, the property vested in the religious trust could not be excluded from the wealth of the assessee.The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner, concluding that neither complete administration nor administration to such a point where the residuary estate could be ascertained had been achieved. The appeals were dismissed.