AHMED IBRAHIM SAHIGRA DHORAJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARAT

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1217/1973Supreme Court[1981] 3 S.C.R. 40207 April 1981Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH17 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji, declared Rs. 7 lakhs of unaccounted income earned during assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65 under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, and paid the specified income tax. In his wealth tax returns for reassessment, he claimed a deduction for this paid income tax as a 'debt owed' under Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Wealth Tax Officer disallowed the deduction, holding that the tax liability was not shown in the balance sheets for the respective years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this. The Tribunal, however, found the liability to be a 'debt owed'. The High Court ruled in favour of the Revenue, viewing the tax under Section 68 as a new, ad hoc charge not constituting a 'debt owed'. The matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction for the income tax paid on amounts added to his total wealth under Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Court reasoned that merely because the amounts were disclosed under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, they did not cease to be incomes that were already liable to income tax. The Finance Act's function was akin to an annual Finance Act, providing a method for liquidation of an already existing income tax liability present on the valuation date, rather than creating a new charge. The voluntary nature of the disclosure did not alter the character of the tax. The Court distinguished previous judgments, stating that the taxed amount was indeed income, albeit not previously assessed. The High Court's finding that Section 68 created a fresh charge was deemed incompatible with reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. The Court noted that Section 68 explicitly referred to 'income tax', confirming its nature. The absence of allocation among assessment years did not detract from the tax being on income. The ratio is that tax paid under a voluntary disclosure scheme, representing an existing income tax liability, is a 'debt owed' deductible for wealth tax purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the liability in respect of income-tax payable on concealed income disclosed by the assessee pursuant to Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is deductible under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in computing the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability to pay tax on the amount disclosed under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, arose not under that Finance Act but under Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The tax paid under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, represents a 'debt owed' and is therefore deductible in computing net wealth. The liability, though discharged under a special scheme, is fundamentally an income tax liability. The voluntary nature of disclosure does not alter the character of the tax. Revenue's Contention: The tax paid by the assessee under the voluntary disclosure scheme was in discharge of a liability created for the first time by the Finance Act, 1965, and therefore, it was not an allowable deduction under the Wealth Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(m),Section 68,Section 17,Section 3,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E . F G H 402 AHMED IBRAHIM SAHIGRA DHORAJI v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARAT April 7, 1981 ( R. S. PATHAK AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act, 1957-Section 2(m)-Finance Act, 1965 gave incentives for voluntary disclosute of concealed income·-Assessee declared large amount of such income and paid tax as provided by Finance Act-Tax so paid-Whether an allowable deduction as "debt owed" under the Wealth Tax Act.

As part of a measure to mop up unaccountt!d money on which no income tax had been paid, an incentive scheme was prepared by the Government under which a person disclosing such income was required to pay a specified rate of tax without attracting the penal provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 provided that a person making a voluntary disclosure of his income in accordance with the provisions of the section would be charged income tax at a specified rate notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax . Act.

The assessee had a large sum of such unaccounted money in his possession.

Without allocating the total sum amongst the different assessment years, he declared that he had a sum of Rs. 7 lak

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(m)

All 28 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(m) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →