Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, PATNAversusRAGHUBIR NARAIN SINGH
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 39
- Decided
- 20 February 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- V D TULZAPURKAR
Holding
Net wealth must be computed by valuing each asset and each debt separately under Section 7(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, considering hazards including possible deductions, and agricultural income‑tax liability is a relevant factor in valuation.
Summary
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patna, appealed against the assessment of Raghubir Narain Singh's net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The issues concerned how to value assets and debts, including pending decree amounts and agricultural income‑tax liabilities, for computing net wealth under Section 7 and Section 2(m) of the Act. The Court held that each asset and each debt must be valued separately under Section 7(1), taking into account hazards such as the risk of deduction of debts and the possibility of execution of decrees. Agricultural income‑tax dues, if not already deducted, are a factor that influences the market value of compensation rights. The Court affirmed the High Court’s application of these principles and dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether pending decree amounts should be valued as assets under Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act.
- Whether agricultural income‑tax liabilities are a factor in valuing compensation rights for net‑wealth calculation.
- Whether debts owed by the assessee should be deducted from the market value of assets in accordance with Section 2(m).
- Whether the market value of an asset must consider hazards such as execution risk and possible deductions.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 4(c)
- Wealth Tax Act, 1957s. 2(m), s. 7, s. 9
Subjects
wealth taxnet‑wealth valuationasset valuationdebt deductionagricultural income taxdecree valuationmarket valuehazards in valuationBihar Land Reforms Act
Judgment
;:"
:->
. '
..
' f
625 A
~ .
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, PATNA
' . ' v.
RAGHUBIR NARAIN SINGH
B
i _.,.....~.
\
-••• Pebruary 20, 1984
[ V.D .• TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARi1, JJ. J c
"'Net wealth"-~·-"V,aluation of'·'n~; wealth.": unde~ section 7 _re'ad with ser_tiqn 2(m) •.
Of the Wealth Tax A.ct,...J.951-Treatnu!llf of (a) co1npensation an10u11t'receiv'ah!e under.
the Bihar Lands. Refor1~~-Act'; (b) the ~eh~ i~ ihe nati1re of Agriculture Inconie
Tax due to Government, and,.ded_uctible ffo1n the receivable con1pensatio11; (c) the D
a1nou1lt of money -decree's- fully attached ·'by Garnishee orders of competent court
and (d) claims tt~der aecrees not yet e.xeruted, expl~dned.
"y The ~sses~ee is an individual and hi~ estate· stood ~csted· in the State of-Bikar
U_nder the Bihar Land Reforms ·Act, 1950'as and lrom 1st or' July.1952, a~d he -is
.~--._,I entitled to receiVC cOmPens'atio~ under the Acf rron1 ,the Govern ment.. 'The; assessr,e
1
. ""-.,during the relevant a~sessment year5 had obtained twdiim<?netary . decrees' from his
debtors, but the amolinfa receivable by the-'"assessee were attached by two~ 7 gatnish"e.e
... orders iss'uCd by·the Cak!u"tta High Court on \3th January-1960 and· 21st J~n:e ," 1961.
0
The asseisee also had some claim. decrees but as th_eY were -not yet exeCuted: they
were sho\Vll in -:'his book of accounts as Still Outstanding. The assesseci had to pay.
Agricultural Incofile Tax to the Government and thi$ deb? has.to-be deducted _from·
·"'' . the conipenSation receivable by th·~ assessc~: Jn these ·five appeais oY certificrite of
fitneSs, question arose as to whether thC answers of the Hjgh <;:::ourt of. ~atna Given
' , F
· .. in the Tax reference!': on the questi9n of correctness of valuation of the "net wealth"
u·nder soction 7 Or the weilth Tax Act, .
:1957 are correct.
'
·•
The Revenue Urged ~be followirl& five propositions:1 -
·'
(I) For t?c· ~urposes_ Qf compUtation of nei·wealth of an_ a".!s~soc: each assCt
,belonging to ;~irn-and (lach de'bt owed by.him haS to -be valutd separatcIY.
"
·,• (2)· The differencetbetwCell the ~ggre.!iat~ value of the assets and the awe~ H
gate value of the.-debts represC~ts his ~ct·wealth.
( •,,.;
. ,,
'·
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.C.R.
A (3) · I? ~!ermining th~ mar~~t v~lue,.of an. ass~t (or_ the resi9ue of the aSset
.?1~n1sh~d by a~ over-nd1ng title on the asset itself),' any liability or debt
1ncurre_d in relation to it has _to ~e ignored as the debt or· liability hits to
be separately evaluated: ·
J (4) What i~· the ~~rke.t value of a ce1iain ·asset or the resid~e asset ~s referred
B to above, iS·a que~tion of fact, to be· detcrnlined finally by the Inco1ne-tax
Appellate Tri_bunal t.;iking into acCollnt ~he relevant evidence a1-i~cl consld~
ratio~s put. forward by both the sides and the High Court Cannot inter-
fere with such a finding of fact unlt:ss it· is found to be based on irrelevant
\ c •
•
(5)
consideration or is arrived at by ignorir:g"relevr.nt eVidcnce.
./
When the debt is represented as an asset, its ma1:ket value has to be deter-
)n
miii.Cd
~·
the san1e ·Iha.oner as ttie ·market value of any other ass"et irres-
Pec:tive of the fac.t whether such an asset-de~t is encu~bercd J;:iy another
-
debt-0wed fro111 the asses~, .becallse__the later-tmlntioned debt can qualify
fo~ deduction· at its· rriarket V<i.lue indcI?~ndcntly. ·
D
Dismissing_ the appeals.the Coµrt, .-\· , •
HP,LD:· 1.l. Sect_ion 7 and 2(M) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, though ~ust
be rea4 harmoniously, apply at two· different stiges.' Section 7 · deals with the- esti-
mation of the market value of the asset, while section 2(M) enjoins that froii1 the
E same, the .debt owned by the assessee to be dedi1cted. The debts may. be deducted .,
from the value of assets bUt the valu~tion ~Of all asse~ hfls to be done in lerms of~
Section 7(1) taking into considerationS all· the hazards incluctmg tbe possibility of
. an an1ount orl account of debt being deduct.ed fron1 t~1e .value of the asset is· a factor.
· \Vhicb:_,vill _influence a ;>respective buYer in the ope1t market, ·depending upon-the
facts and drucumstances of each q:ise. [633-EF] •
F 'f
J
1.2. ,.:Agricultural income tax dties from the assessee· which are deductible
fro1n the compensation under Section 4(c) of the 'Bihar Land Refonns Act, .1950,
if the "s3.me bas not been dectuCted before the issue of the cornpensation bond,' then
the possibility and the hazard of its being duducted fron1 the,compcnsniion involv<."d~
is a faCtor which has to b~ taken into acCount in estimating the value of the right.
of comp6ns:i.tion for the purpose of eS:timating· the net \Vealth of the as~;essee on the
.G ~.
valuation date" under the Wealth Tax Act. TI1e arrears of agricult"ural incon1c-tax
is .not to. be' deducted from the n~t wealth as such but is a factor which willing Pui-- 0
_....,
chaser will take· into consideration in estimating the ·value of thCse assCls and that
is a- factO'r ·which should be taken into consideration .. The Tribunal will estimate'
the ~alue -taking iilto consideration the ptis.sibility of dcduc;ti"on ·on account of the
H liability of the assessec- on ::i.ccount of 3.gricultural iii.Come-tiix if it had not been
I already dedUcted in accordilnce With the prov1sioris of the A~t and determine· the
net value·of the assets of the aSsossee, 3.ccOrdingly. [629A-D]
' .
c. v. T. w. RAGHUBIR NARAIN. 627
. Commi'ssion'er Of Wen/th Tax,'B(har, Patna'Vs. M'1haraja Kuffiar Kamal~Singh '-A
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1238 to 1240 (NT)/J,973 decided ·On 20-2-84 relied ·on'. ·
. I . '
2.'1. Ir .~here is. an asscf which is. ~~bject. to certain hazards ihclud~ng ·the liabi-
lity· or"certain debt to be deducted from the said asset, then th:it factor would -be ·
a relevant factor dimini~}liug the -marhe~ va!Ue o.f the asset in Open market and has
·to. be estimated> taking into consideration t~at factor. [633D]_, · ' 'B ~
, .
. ' '
...,.. ·2.2. Merely becalise the asscssee had shown the fu11 dccretal amo_unts in his
hooks as still·duc,_ would. n~t rpso /aero· lead ·to the conclusiOn tha(ihey -should· ,be.
. _ Valued at thOse suhls whhoUt taking into consideratioll the hazards of realisation
. -·.·of t~e ctecre.es. These ctccrei:-.s had ~o-t · ~ri executed ·and in the process of execlition-
. there may be hazards ai1d the \Vea.Ith Tax ,Officer n1ust .estl~ate the price- of the c
decree by anticipat'ing what a willing prirchaser wouid·havC paid for those decrees·
taking the haz<1rds'-into consideration in open inarket on the valuation ct'a.tc-arid
~hould .estimate the price of the· asset ill.questi~rt accordingly: .: .[631C-D]
::'..3. When assessee .had c: .·daim ,decfce ::i.gainst hs debtor, thC Wcalih. Tax
Officer should ascertain the - price that a· rcasOriablc. person would have paid fo11 it·
D
on the rel~nt _date, and ".al~c ,jn oPen m3.rket ·c~nsidering .that this~ claim decree
Can only bO sati~fied, wholly opartly fr6m the compensation which the .debtor
would receive under. the Bihar J--aqd Reforms A~t, 1950.'\The clailn decree iS· hn
· asset, but-it shf?uld be·vaI_ucd by estimating What it would fetch in tho open· market
on the'valuatiOn ·date taking int~ .coasideration all the h~zards_. [631H, 632A] ·
#
. I· 3.1. For· the ·pUfp6ses Or con-iputR_tion of net-wealth o~ ~n aSi;e1See each. agset
,
·--4.._;'-belonging to him and each dfbt owed 1?Y ,him haS tO br valued scpai·atd)r. [632E]
.. J
3,2.
'
The difference between the aggregate value· of the assets alld the atgri· :'F
gate value of. the debts represe~t~ his net-wealth. · [632F] -,. . ·
··.,...
. C;'Y!L APPBLLATH JUKIIDICTION•: Civil Appeal Nos. 1233-1237of1'973.
·•
Appeals from t!;e Judgment and Order dated the .5th May, 1972
G
efthe Patna High'\ourt in Tax Cases Nos. 64 to 68 of'l967. . !
'.
G.C Sharma~ · JJ. B, . A.hufa · & Miss A. · Subhashini fo; the H
. ' Appellant.,~
..
628 . SUPR!ME COURT REPORTS (1984} 2 S.C.R •
,. . .
A · P.X. Chatterjee and Rathin Dass for the Respondent. ·
. I
-·-··
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by I '
.. ' ,-
B SABYASACHI .MmrnARJJ, J., These appe.als from the judgment
of the High Court of Patna have come to this Court by certificates
l!lranted under Section 29 of the Wealth Tax Act, .1957. The questions
upon which the. certificates. of fitness of appeal to this Court have licen
granted are question Nos. (2), (3) and (4) in Tax Cases Nos. 64 to 68
of 1967. The questions are as follows: <, •
c '
~ "Qu.stion No. 2. ·Whether, " in the fact• and circumstances
of the case, the decrees obtained by the assessee against Shri A.H.
I,al arid Shri D'.D. Tulsi for Rs:. 1,11.747 and Rs. ·51,525 respec-
tively, have been valued under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, by·.
D correctly applying the provisions of section 9 of the Act for the '
purpose of including their values fa th~ net w~alth of. the ustssee?
Question· J'{o. 3~Whether, ,the sum 'of Rs. 32,266, the
. E amount of Agricultural income-tax due from. thb asessee, falls
• for deduction in hands ·of the assessee in arriving at his total
. wealth for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960:61? .. ,.).,·
·011.stion No .. 4-Whether, the sum• of Rs. 597909 due
from Tikait Girja .·Prasad Singh,+.Rs. 40001 due (rom Sri ;.
• Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Rs. 64000 due from Mahanth Maha-
bir Das, Rs .. 37773 due from Sri Lakshmi Narain Singh, Rs. 2600
due from Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Rs. 1250 due from Sri.
· Sarj~g Kumar, Rs. 15344 due from Sri .NandJoshore Singh, and •
G. Rs. 388760 due from Raja ·Prithivichand Lal Chaughiiry under
claim decrees obtained against them by. •ne .assessee under
the Bihar ·Land Reforms Act are. assets of tno as.essee within .
the meaning of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and have been valued
under the. 'said Act by correctly applyin~ ,he orovisions of
H section 7 of the Act for the purpose of incl.ud.ing their values
in 'the net wealth of the assessee"? j.
.,
.. .,,_
··'
\ 629 •
· c.w.T: v. RAGHUllIR N.ARAIN (Mukharji, 1.).
. • Regarding Question Na.· 3 which is the question whether!the
amount of agricultural income-tax dues from the assessee is a factor·
which has to be taken into accou·nt for 'valuing the compensatfol} pay-·
A.'
f able to the assessee, we·have held that agricultural.income-tax ~.ues
from the asscssee which are deductible from the. compensation under
. Section 4 (c) of the -Bihat Land RefotmsAct, .1950, if the sal]le has not
• been deducted .before the issue <if the compensation bond, then the .B
· ·.. 'possibility a11d the hazafd ·of its being ~.eduded fro,m th~ compen-
sation involved is a factor which has.to be taken into account in esti-
"· · mating the value of the right of compensation for the purpose of esti-
'ffiating -'tI1e net wealth cif the assessee on the valuation d~te under the
: • ·. Wealth Act. The ·~dears, of a_gricultural incofTle-tax is not io be
Tax
deducted frcim the net wealth ·as such but is a factor which a willing ·.c
purcha.ser will take into consideration in· estimating the .value of these '.. "'·
assests and .that isa factor which should be taken into consideration.
The point h&s been discussed by this Court in the case ~f Com~issioner ·
'.\ of Wealth. Tax,'Bihar, J!atna v. Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh (Civil
·Appeal Nos. 1238 to 1240 (NT) of 1973)~ ,The qµestion, is, ·therefore ·
aµswered as•the ans>yere~ given in the said appeals and the Tribunal
will estinwte the Value by taking into C'<nsideration the possibility for
deduction on account. of the liability of the assessee on account. of
agricultural income-tax if it had not be2n already deducted in' accor-. .,
dance wi_th the" provisions of the Act a:nel determine the net value of
. the assets of the assessee, accordingly. , .,
~·
I
•\ ,
- ,.
'
\ .
.
·:
•
.;
I
. .
.
.
.E
These.
.,
questions are 'for the wealth ta-x assessments
' ' ..... of. the asses- ·
sec for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and
1961-62. J'he assessments involved were for those years in which the
relevant valuation dates we're 20th September, 1956,.2lst March, 1958;
21st March, 1959, 21st.March 1%0 and 20th March 1'96hespectively.
In the firs\)'ear the'assessee had filed return of wealth for Rs. 447065. F
The Wealth Tax Officer, however, determined the total wealth of the
.assessee at 'Rs: 1608863. The Wealth Tax Officer included in the net
wealth of the assessec, v~rious amounts of money due under. the
I ' decrees which the assessee hal,l obtained against certain debtQrs, as•,
well as t.he compensation payable to him under the Bihar 'Land Re-
forms A.Gt after valuing the bonds.· It may be mentioned that the as- G
ses see· had appealed to the· Appellate A~sistant Commissioner arid
thereafter he . had carried appeals ,to the Tribunal also and
·had obtained. snme srelief in _the processc For the subsequent assess-
ment years of 1958-59. 1959-.60, 1960-61 and 1961-6.2, 'similar con-
siderations had come \IP before the Wealth Tax Officer, o~ the assessee 'H '·
filing separate· returns and similar results were followed. In each year '·
\
\ '
L
.. ,,
•
. 630 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 • C:S.R.
..
the as~essee
. had claimedn ~ertain deductions:
. . including an amount of
R•. 32266 due as agricultural income tax. The later sum hns . been ·
consi5tently disallowed. This point we have 'd,isposed of in terms of
· tlo.o deeisioa of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1238 to· 1240 (NT) of
1973. .. . .
B
So far as Question No. 2;is concerned, while' computing the net
wealth, the Wealth Tax Ofi\oer had incluc:e<l the sums of Rs. 8000 and
~s.'130.11 for the ;iear 1957-58, due from S;i A.K.Hazr~ and Sri N.
· Sabay respectively, on the b~sis o( l)sufructuary mortgatge in favour
· of the asse~see as his assests. On th~ last point the assessee has obtained ~-
.~ relief from the Appellate Tribunai for the year 1957-58 and for .that
reafon thes·~ two sums were excluded from .the net wealth of the asses- ·
see for the subsequent assessment years and that point had given· rise
-' · to the reference in Tax Cases Nos. 23 to 27 of 1966. On the other
questions raised by the assessee, reference in Tax. Cases No~: 64. to
'· 68 of 1967 had arisen.
D
. .
. the facts thaterial for. Questi~n No. 2 are.as
No,,; '
follows:
•.
'
The assessee had obtained civ]J court decrees for Rs. 11 i747.
and Rs. 51525 again·st Sri A.H. Lai and Shri D.D. Tulsi. The decrees
are sti.li pending e~ecution. In the books of the assessee'lfthese two
decretal aniounts were showff as tstill outstanding. So far as the decree
obtained against Shri D.D. Tulsi, th~ position seems to be that .Tulsi
owed a decree to the assessee and the assessee owed money to the bank.
In .c;onnection with the decr~e obtained against D.D. Tulsi, it liad
l>een contended before ihe Tribunal that at the instance ofo the Official
Liqwdator, the Calcutta High Court had issuef.1 a Garnishj order· on
13th January, 1960 for setting off the assessee's liability to the Pacific
'
Bank and, therefore, the decree-.did not represent wealth wh.ich could .
be valued under the Act. It was recorded by the Tribunal that the order·
.of the Caltuita High ¢ourt had been passed after the relevant dates
of the first three assessment years and it held that even for the ·assess~
m.ent years 1960,61 and 1961-62, tlie 'order of attachment could not
indicate that the value of the decree was 'nil', as was the assessee's
·~se. Hence, the decree against. Sri tulsi was valued by the Wealth
Tax Officer at Rs. 51525. As regards the decree against Sri A.H.
Lal, tlie attachment order passed by the Calcutta High- Court was on
H
· :m1t ..
1'!11e, 1961, ~hat,is to say,. even aftet the valuation date for the
.•
'
c.w.T. v.. RAGHUll!R NA~AiN' (Mukharji, J.) 631 ' •.'
assessment year 1961-62. Tl;ede'cree.was therefore valued by the Wealth A
Tax Officer at the figure of Rs.· JI 1747. · It was- die contention. of
the assessee. that the hvo decrees had been erroneously valued and 'the .
.. principles for valuation unde'r Se~tion 7 (I~ had· hot been followed:
On the other hand it was cbntended 'on. behalf of the revenue !bat
. decrees had been correctly valued· unde~ Section 7 (2) (a) of the .AC't.
·'The High Court held and in our opinion rightly·that .two d.ecrees had B
:not been.valued under. Section .7 (2) of the Act at all and. had been·
· valued under Section 7 (I) of the Act.,We are in agreement with the
. High Cour~ that merely becausetJ;e assessee had shown the_ full dec;e-
., .
tal amounts in his books as still due, would notdpsofacto lead to the
~ conclusion that they would be valued at those sums without taking.into
.. co~sideration tlie haz_ards of realisa6on pf the ·decrees. These decrees c
·had not been executed and in the process of execution, there may be
..
hazards and the Welath'Tax Officer n!ust,sJimate the price ·of the decree
by anticipating what a willing purchaser won.Id have paid for those
deerees taking the hazards Into consideration ·-in open market on• the
. val_uation date and should estimate the price of thi; asset in question
accordingly. The High Court. answered this question in the negative ..
We are of the opinion that in view of the well-settled principles which
D
..
we have discussed In the case of Cimimi~sioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar,
Patna v. Maharaja · Kumar Kaina/ Singh '(Civil A,ppeal Nos~ ·1238 to:·
1240 (NT) of 1973, the.High Court was right in its decision' · ·
{ .
r
sf ar as the~ Q·uestion. No. 3 is concerned,. the same question
~-.; would. have to be answered in the manner indicated above and the
. High Court has done the same and we affirm the said decision in view
·of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.· 1238 tci J240 (NT)
. of 1973. The facts regarding question. No .. 4 after taking into co~·side~
ration statement of this. case as also the suppiementary statement 6f . F
..\: .the .case sent to the High Court pursuant to its. dirc.tions are as .
· follows : .
/
- In respect of sums · due from. Tikait Girja Prasad Singh; .the
. High ·Court-h~s ~liserved that assessee was entitled in respect;of the G ·.
, zamindari compe~sation of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh which had.
vested in the G,overnn1ent ·and the. valne of.the compensation 11ad Men".
estimated 'at 75 per cent . of' certain, figure. The High Court
directed that . when assessee had a claim. decree against . its
debtor, the Wealth Tax.Officer should_ ascertain the price that a·reason- H
al:lle. person would have paid for. ii on the relevant -date, . valuation
... .' ' ..
. '
',
•
,632 .[1984) 2 5.C.R.
'
\
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
' ..
in op~n market Considering that this claim decree Cal) only be Satisfied
wholly or partly from the compensation which the·. 'debtor would .,__ __
'
receive under ·the Bihar Land Reforms ·Act. 1950.~ The claim
decree was ·an a~set, the High Court held, but -it was wrongly valued
by the authorities and directM to be valued by estimating what it would
fetch in the open market on the valuation date taking into considc-
B ·ration all the hazarils.
·on the same principle, the other decrees mentfoned in the. q~estidns ..-
ha~e been disposed of by the High Court. We are of' the opinion th'at ·
i~ view of the principles :discussed by this Court in the case of Commis- ~·"
c . s10ner of JV,a/th ·Tax, B1har, Patna 'v. Maharaja Kuma.r Kaflutl Singh ,,,_
the High Co,urt was right in its conclusion. Indeed this question was
hot seriously pressed before us sewrately ...
•
We. may. reiterat<; that learned. ·counsel for the revenue urged ·
D before U& certain propositions, namely: ,,
(1) For the ·purposes of computation of. net-wealth of an asses-
see e~ch asset belongini: to him and each debt owed by hill}
has to be valued s.cparately, · ·· • · '
(2) , The difference between the ai:i:reagate value 0f
the 'assets and the agrcgate value of the debts ,represents his -
.:r.
net-wealth. · ·
,'
F
(3) In determining the market value of an asset(or the_ residue · "I
of the asset diminishCd by an over-tiding title. on the asset
itself), any ·liability or debt incu\red in relation to it h~s. to
be ii:nored as the debt or liability has tci be separately evalua-
ted. · '
•
G
(4) What is the market value of a certain asset· P• he residue
asset as referred to 'above: i; a question of fact, to be deter~ i~
mined finally by the Income-tax Appellate ·.Tribunal taking
H .' ir1Jo account 111e relevant evidence and: consid" ·utions put
fore ward by both the sides and the High Cow cannot in"·, ..
,,, ''
'
: -.. :o-.'" ;;--;·
' .
J'
C.W.T.)'. RAGIIUBIR NARAIN (Mukhar}i.-J.)
' . ~' . \'
633
.
,# terfere with such a finding of fact ~nless it isJou~d t~. be ..·.A
• ---..:i.
basect ~n irrelevant consideration or is arrived at by' ignor-
ing 'relevant' evidence.
'---.
' ~
(5) When the debt is representedasm) asset, its market. value
' - . '
has. to be determined in ·the same manner as the. market" .
value of any other asset irrespective of the fact whether such
an asset-debt"is encumbered by another debt owed from the
assessee, because the later-mentioned debt can qualify for
deduction at its mark~t value independently: ·
I c
· About proposition No. (l) and (2) above, there cannot be' any
dispute.' But as regards Proposition No. (3), as this Court has discussed
in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Pihar Patnq v. Mahdraja Kumar
. Kamal Singh, if there is an' asset, whicli_.is -subject 'to certain hazards
j · including the liability. of certain debts to be deducted from the .said
ttsset, then that factor ~ould be relevant factor diminishing the market .
.. \
value of the asset in open market and has to be estimated taking into·
consideration that f~ct9r. Regarding Proposition No. ( 4), it may be
D
stated that while it is a question of fact but if the Tribunal has arrived
at the conclusion by takit1g wrong principles into consideration, then
· such a findi'ng )VOU!d not bind the High Court. Regarding Propositon
-·-·. No. (5), it 'may ·be· stated that (de bis may be deducted from' the value
. ..;;. i E
of a$,sets but the· valuation of an asset has to be \!one in terms of Section
/ 7 (I) taking into considerations a!I the hazard$ including the po.sibility
"---. of au amount on account, of. debt being deducted fron\ the value of the
·asset is a factor which will. influence a prospective buyer in the open
/ ''
.
market, depending upon the facts and· circumstances of each case ..
.
' . . ·~ '
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we affirm the decision of the
.· High Couri in all these points and dism.iss the~e appeals with costs:
,
S.R. .&pplifals dismissed. ·
~~
...
·,
:i
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "wealth tax"Sign in to search