TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government on 17-10-1971 and the business itself was nationalised with effect from 1-5-1972. 3. The WTO noticed that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 14,59,876.79 from the Commissioner of Payments, Dhanbad, being his share of compensation money, interest and other payments receivable by him as partner of the said firm. However, the assessee had shown the value of his interest in the said firm at Rs. 4,14,691 only. The assessee's contention in this behalf was that it was only this amount which represented the aggregate value of the share of income of the assessee from the said firm for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and nothing more than could be added to that as being the net value of the assessee's share in the assets o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the assessee's share came to Rs. 4,04,354. This was the amount payable to the firm on account of compensation for pre-takeover period profit, i.e., from 1-7-1971 to 16-10-1971, the profit accruing from 17-7-1971 to 30-4-1972 and management commission for this period less loss on account of nationalisation of the assets of the firm as on 1-5-1972. The assessee's contention in this behalf was that this was the only amount that had been held to be payable to the assessee in this year. The balance amount actually paid to the assessee was somewhere in the year 1978 and at the relevant time nothing more than this amount was payable to the assessee and could not form part of his net wealth. We are afraid, we are wholly disinclined to agree ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....position was held to be applicable to wealth-tax matters also. The legal proposition laid down in these authorities cannot be disputed but it will follow from this proposition itself that the interest of a partner in the firm's assets is not nil. The value can still be computed. For the purpose of treating this value to be nil, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CWT v. U.C. Mahatab [1970] 78 ITR 214. However, this case has no application to the facts of the present case. In this case the compensation was payable only to the intermediary, whose right was acquired by the Government after the compensation roll was prepared and finally published under section 21 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount was not paid to the assessee on the relevant valuation dates and what the assessee owned at that time was the right to receive compensation in respect of the colliery but the actual amount not having been paid, the whole of it could not be considered to be the assessee's asset. Support was sought to be drawn to this proposition from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97, which case in fact was relied upon by the departmental representative for the proposition that the right to receive compensation is property, though the date of payment may differ, and constitutes an asset. In this case itself the right to receive the compensation under the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950, was det....