COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.P.P.ALPHONSA

PDF · subscribers
WTA/24/2008HC KeralaKLHC01081045200801 March 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that cash in hand in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is assessable to Wealth Tax. The Court followed its own prior decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. K.R. Ushasree [2011] 332 ITR (Ker). The reasoning was that the issue had been squarely decided in favour of the revenue by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the High Court allowed the department's appeal, reversing the order of the ITAT and upholding the assessment that had been previously upheld by the CIT (Appeals). No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kottayam, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The assessee is Smt. P.P. Alphonsa. The dispute concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be covered by the assessment order dated 16/01/2006. The core issue is whether cash in hand exceeding Rs. 50,000/- is assessable to Wealth Tax. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) had upheld the assessment, which was then reversed by the ITAT. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether cash in hand in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is assessable to Wealth Tax, under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the fact that the ITAT's order was in favour of the assessee suggests that the assessee likely argued that cash in hand exceeding Rs. 50,000/- should not be subject to Wealth Tax. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that cash in hand in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is indeed assessable to Wealth Tax. The Revenue relies on a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. K.R. Ushasree [2011] 332 ITR (Ker) to support its contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16,Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933 WTA.No. 24 of 2008 ( ) ---------------------- WTA.NO.63/2006 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH -------------------------------------------- APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------------------------- SMT.P.P.ALPHONSA, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI.A.KUMAR THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. sts

W.T.A.NO.24/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 17 R.W.S. 16 DATED 16/01/2006. ANNEX B COPY OF THE ORDER IN WTA.NO.4/CIT-IV/05-06 DATED 14/07/2006 ANNEX C COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT IN WTA.NO.63/COCH/2006 DATED 12/03/2007 ANNEX D COPY OF THE CBDT'S INSTRUCTION NO.2 OF 2005 DATED 24/10/2005. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.T. Appeal No. 24 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2012 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The issue raised is whether cash in hand in excess of Rs.50,000/- is assessable to Wealth Tax. This issue stands decided squarely in favour of the revenue by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Smt. K.R. Ushasree [2011] 332 ITR (ker). Following the said judgment, we allow the department appeal by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and upholding the assessment that was upheld by the CIT (Appeals). Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. krs.

More judgments on Section 16

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 16 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →