TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, exceed Rs. 1,50,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the house property at 7/1, Queens Park or a part thereof can be said to belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, where the assessee, admittedly, has only a life interest therein ? " Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, held Government securities on the respective valuation dates as follows : ----------------------------------------------- Valuation date Amount (Rs.) ----------------------------------------------- 31-3-1972 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case. Aggrieved by these assessments, the assessee brought the matter by way of appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73, upheld the aforesaid claims of the assessee for the year under consideration. The Revenue, thereupon, appealed to the Tribunal against the aforesaid consolidated order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as the facts for the year under consideration as well as the rival submissions of both the sides were identical to those which were the subjectmatter of the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1972-73, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69 (Cal) by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was misplaced inasmuch as the said decision was rendered under the Estate Duty Act and not under the Wealth-tax Act. It was urged by the Revenue that the Tribunal, in one of the matters, decided that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of this court in the case of Jyotirmoy Raha [1978] 112 ITR 969, had no application to the cases under the Wealth-tax Act. On behalf of the assessee, the above submissions were resisted and reliance was placed on the aforesaid decision of this court. Apart from it, reference was made to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CED v. Estate of Late Sanka Simhachalam [1975] 99 ITR 370. The Tribunal, after considering the provisions of clause (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the controversies involved in this reference. We will now take up the first question. Section 5(1A) provided as follows : "(1A) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate to exclude from the net wealth of the assessee any 'assets referred to in clauses (iva), (xv), (xvi), (xxii), (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxxi), and (xxxii) (not being deposits under the Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Deposits) Rules, 1959), to the extent the value thereof exceeds, in the aggregate, a sum of one hundred and fifty thousand rupees : Provided that where the assets include any assets referred to in clause (xv) or clause (xvi) not being deposits under the Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to in clauses (xv) and (xvi) of section 5(1) exceeds Rs. 1,50,000 and where such value does not exceed Rs. 1,50,000, the question of raising the limit under the proviso does not arise at all. This is also the view taken by the Kerala High Court in CWT v. Sethu Parvathi Bayi (H. H.) [1979] 116 ITR 135 and CWT v. H. H. Sri Rama Varma Maharaja of Travancore [1988] 169 ITR 273 ; the Karnataka High Court in Ayodhyanath (K S.) v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 309 ; the Gujarat High Court in Digvijaysinhji (K S.) v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 313 ; and the Madras High Court in Saroja Ravindran v. CWT [1989] 177 ITR 302. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as the second questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sons in equal shares. Under section 2(m) of the Act, an asset can be included in the wealth tax assessment, if it belongs to the assessee. If a life interest is treated as such an asset belonging to the assessee and included in the assessment, there is no reason why such asset will not be entitled to exemption provided in respect of any such asset. In Jyotirmoy Raha's case [1978] 112 ITR 969 (Cal), section 33(1)(n) came up for consideration. Under section 33, no estate duty is payable in respect of several kinds of properties " belonging to " the deceased enumerated therein. One of such properties is one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for his residence to the extent specified in clause (n) of section 33(1). Life ....