COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, MADRAS vs. SMT. MUTHUKRISHNA AMMAL

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1922/1967Supreme Court[1969] 2 S.C.R. 106 September 1968Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Muthukrishna Ammal, obtained leases for salt pans from the Government in 1943 and 1945. Each lease was for 25 years but terminable by either party at the close of any salt manufacturing season. The assessee sublet these leases for Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 18,000 per year, respectively. For the assessment year 1959-60, the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the assessee's leasehold interest in the salt pans for the unexpired period in her net wealth, amounting to Rs. 1,89,330. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that this interest was not an 'asset' under Section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, as it was not available for more than six years. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that an interest in property which is available to the taxpayer for a period not exceeding six years from the valuation date is not an 'asset' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, and its value cannot be included in the net wealth. The leasehold interest in the salt pans was precarious, being terminable by notice at the close of any manufacturing season, and thus was not available to the assessee for a period exceeding six years from the valuation date. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that 'is available' meant 'is and has been available', stating that the plain meaning of the words indicated the future availability of the interest. The Court also held that the amendment in 1964 to Section 2(e)(v) did not indicate a parliamentary exposition of the original clause and did not apply to the assessment year in question. The Court noted that Section 4(5) of the Act, concerning irrevocable transfers, implicitly supported the view that interests revocable within six years were not to be included in net wealth.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the leasehold interest of the assessee in the salt pans is an 'asset' within the meaning of Section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and its value is includible in the net wealth of the assessee? Assessee's contention: The leasehold interest was not an 'asset' because it was terminable by notice at the close of any salt manufacturing season, meaning it was not available for a period exceeding six years from the valuation date. Therefore, it fell under the exclusion in Section 2(e)(v). Revenue's contention: The expression 'is available to an assessee for a period not exceeding six years' in Section 2(e)(v) means 'is and has been available' for six years prior to the valuation date. Since the leases had been enjoyed for more than six years and were still subsisting, the interest should be considered an 'asset'. The revenue also argued that an amendment in 1964 to Section 2(e)(v) by adding 'from the date the interest vests in the assessee' indicated a parliamentary exposition of the original clause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(e)(v),Section 3,Section 2(m),Section 4(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

• ' ( A COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, MADRAS B c D v. SMT. MUTHUKRISHNA AMMAL September 6, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Wealth-tax Act s. 2(e) (v)-"Asset"-Definition of-Unexpired period of lease in excess of six years-Terminable in any year by notice from either party-If an "asset" to be included in computation of wealth.

By two agreements of January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1945, the respondent obtained on lease from the Government certain salt pans.

Each lease was to endure for 25 years but was liable to be determined by notice on either side at the close of any salt manufacturing season. The respondent sublet the rights under one lease for Rs. 15,000 per year and under the other lease for Rs. 18,000 per year. In the course of the respondent's assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1959-60, the Wealth-tax Officer calculated the value of the respondent's interest in the salt pans for the unexpired period of the two leases and included it in the computation of her net wealth. His order Was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Tribunal, in appeal, held that the interest of the respondent in the salt pa

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 3

All 264 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →