TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (1) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e liability of Rs. 26.60 lakhs, the assessee had paid Rs. 11.11 lakhs. In April, 1957, the assessee petitioned the Central Board of Revenue pointing out that the liability that had been imposed upon him arose mostly out of estimated additions which were disputed by him. He stated further that the net worth of his properties was only Rs. 6.51 lakhs and that if they were to be sold in realisation of the arrears of tax, the properties would fetch even less. He suggested that the total outstanding liability might be reduced to Rs. 6.50 lakhs and that he would withdraw all his petitions by way of appeals, revisions and the like for the relevant years. He also asked that the sum of Rs. 6.50 lakhs, at which his tax liability should be settled, sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee, overruling the department's contention that because time had been granted for the payment of the amounts, the debt was not owing on the relevant valuation dates. It held that the liability did exist, that it had been quantified and relying upon the decision in Raja of Venkatagiri v. Commissioner of Incometax [1955] 28 I.T.R. 189, accepted the contention that for the first of the assessment years the sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs represented the debt owed, and for the second, the sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs and that these amounts should be deducted in the computation of the net wealth. The department applied under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, and the following question was referred by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on the valuation date and is claimed by the assessee in appeal, revision or other proceedings as not being payable by him; or (b) which, although not claimed by the assessee as not payable by him, is nevertheless outstanding for a period of more than 12 months on the valuation date. It is clear from this clause that where an amount of tax, penalty or interest, is payable by the assessee, and his liability is being questioned by him in proceedings in appeal, etc., that amount is not deductible. The other clause is, though the amount is not in dispute, if it is still outstanding for more than 12 months on the valuation date, that is not deductible. It is in the context of these exceptions that the present contention of the department has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tlement was not one which could be traced to any provisions of the Act, it was not one under the Act at all, that is to say, it was not an income- tax liability in the form it took, so that whether it was outstanding for more than twelve months or not, whatever was outstanding on the relevant dates would still be deductible. There is no doubt, to our minds, that a debt was owed on the respective dates. The question is whether it is a debt owed at that point of time. The contention of the department is that the amount outstanding represents a debt to be paid on a future date and therefore it is not owed on the valuation date. It seems to us that this contention does not represent the true state of things. The relevant clause relating to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pay forthwith or in future within a time certain; and (3) the obligation must have accrued and must be subsisting and should not be that which is merely accruing. It was observed herein [1963] 48 I.T.R. 1005, 1015: "Broadly stated, it (the debt) is a liquidated money obligation for the recovery of which an action will lie. It is an ascertained, liquidated, quantified obligation enforceable in praesenti or in futuro. A debt must be a 'debitum'--that is due. The fact that the time for payment will arise in future does not make it any the less a debt, debitum in praesenti, solvendum in futuro--this is not repugnant to the conception of a debt, because the obligation is crystallised, and it is only the payability that is in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceed to recover the old income-tax arrears. But, if the assessee kept to the terms of the contract and made the payments on the due dates, Government lost the right to recover any amount over and above this amount of Rs. 6.50 lakhs. It seems to us that both in fact and in law, the settlement at Rs. 6.50 lakhs put an end to the old claim under the Income-tax Act and brought into existence a new claim altogether. If the provision that if default occurred, the settlement would be void and the Government would be restored to their old rights, did not exist, then the only manner in which the Government could realise this sum of Rs. 6.50 lakhs or any amount out of it remaining unpaid would be to institute a suit, for, to our minds, this is not....