TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxable under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In elaborating his contention, he had referred to the charging section, viz., section 3 of the Act, which proposes to impose tax on "net wealth" exceeding a particular valuation. "Net wealth", as defined in section 2(m) means the aggregate value of all the assets subject to the provisions contained therein. The word "asset" used in section 2(m) as defined in section 2(ea) does not include commercial building. In order to emphasize that a commercial building was not an asset, Mr. Khaitan had led us through the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1996, pointing out from clause 54. He contends that the amendment has introduced something new, since explained. According to him, the provision is clear. Having regard to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change the position and would definitely be chargeable as an asset. He also attempted to draw an analogy from the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the income from such property is treated as an income from house property without making any distinction in between residential or commercial building so as to treat the same as an asset. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In our view whether an item of property is chargeable to tax or not is dependent on the true construction of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, in the strict sense it is enacted. There cannot be any ambiguity in a charging section. If two views are possible, the one beneficial to the assessee is to be adopted. Unless a property is chargeable under the charging s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re included in the definition of asset. It included guest house, residential building, farm house situated within 25 kilometres of the municipal town. But did not include commercial building. It had specifically referred to some kinds of buildings while it omitted to include the other kinds. Therefore, only the kinds included are taxable and not the others. In Ajax Products Ltd.'s case [1965] 55 ITR 741, the Supreme Court, at page 747, had relied on a passage from Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64, 71, where Rowlatt J. observed: "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h tax is to be levied, is defined in clause (ea) of section 2. This definition includes any guest house and any residential house (including a farm house situated within 25 kms. of the local limits Of any municipality) for levy of tax, except the exclusions made in items (1) and (2) of sub-clause (i) of this clause. If residential houses have been taken as assets, there seems to be no reason why commercial properties, other than those used by the assessee wholly and exclusively in his business or profession, should also be not taken as assets. It is, therefore, proposed to tax commercial buildings, which are not used by the assessee in his business or profession, other than the business of letting out of properties." However, we are not ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his decision, this court observed: "An assessee is liable to pay tax only upon such income as can be in law included in his total income and which can be lawfully assessed under the Act. The law empowers the Income-tax Officer to assess the income of an assessee according to law and determine the tax payable thereon. In doing so, he cannot assess an assessee on an amount, which is not taxable in law, even if the same is shown by an assessee. There is no estoppel by conduct against law nor is there any waiver of the legal right as much as the legal liability to be assessed otherwise than according to the mandate of the law (sic). It is always open to an assessee to take the plea that the figure, though shown in his return of total income, is....