THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. LATE COL. HARINDER SINGH

PDF · subscribers
WTA/4/2000HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045886200020 November 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue regarding the includability of the assessee's share in Cash Incentive/Duty Draw Back Claim in net wealth, chose not to decide the controversy on merits. The Court noted that the tax effect was diminutive (Rs. 27,794/-) and the parties had been litigating for over 17 years. Following the view taken by a Full Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76, the Court preferred to refrain from interfering in the order passed by the Tribunal and answering the question of law. No specific finding was given on the ITAT's decision, and no operative directions were issued.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, against an order dated 16.4.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1991-92. The dispute concerns the includability of the assessee's share in Cash Incentive/Duty Draw Back Claim receivable in the net wealth of the assessee. The tax effect involved is Rs. 27,794/-. The parties have been litigating for over 17 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee’s share in Cash Incentive/Duty Draw Back Claim receivable is not includable in the net wealth of the assessee? (Question of law turning on Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee's share in Cash Incentive/Duty Draw Back Claim receivable should be included in the net wealth of the assessee, based on the interpretation of Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment does not record specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27A,Section 2(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2009 Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Ludhiana …Appellant Versus Raman Bansal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Shammi Bansal, Advocate.

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, against order dated 16.4.1999, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in WTA No. 283/Del/93, in respect of assessment year 1991-92. The revenue has sought to raise the following substantial question of law for determination of this Court:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of Clause (e) of Section 2 of Wealth Tax Act, the ITAT was right in law in holding that assessee’s share in Cash Incentive/Duty Draw Back Claim receivable is not includable in the net wealth of the assessee?” The tax effect involved in the present case is Rs. 27,794/- which in monetary terms is diminutive. This is evident from the perusal of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), dated 11.12.1992 (A-2). Therefore, we do not wish decide the controversy on merit as the parties have been litigating for the last over 17 years. In that regard we follow the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76. Accordingly, we prefer to refrain from interfering in the order passed by the Tribunal and answering the question of law. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 12, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 2(e)

All 29 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →