Holding

Section 2(m)(iii)(a) does not bar the deduction because the tax was not outstanding on the valuation dates, and the Revenue failed to satisfy the statutory conditions.

Summary

The assessee sought to deduct wealth‑tax liabilities of Rs 22,679 (assessment year 1960‑61) and Rs 39,692 (assessment year 1961‑62) while computing net wealth for the valuation dates of 31 March 1961 and 31 March 1962. The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed part of it, and the Appellate Tribunal held that Section 2(m)(iii)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act did not apply because the tax was not payable on the valuation dates. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the tax was “outstanding” and that the assessee’s appeals barred the deduction. The Supreme Court held that a tax becomes “outstanding” only after a demand notice is served, which in this case occurred after the valuation dates, so the first condition of Section 2(m)(iii)(a) was not satisfied. Although the assessee’s appeals were filed after the valuation dates, they satisfied the second condition, but the Revenue could not prove the tax was outstanding on the dates. Consequently, the bar under Section 2(m)(iii)(a) could not be invoked and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the wealth‑tax liabilities were ‘outstanding on the valuation date’ within the meaning of Section 2(m)(iii)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act.
Whether an appeal filed after the valuation date satisfies the requirement that the amount be claimed by the assessee in appeal as not payable.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act
Wealth Tax Acts. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 2(m)(iii)(a), s. 30

Subjects

Wealth TaxSection 2(m)(iii)(a)Outstanding taxValuation dateDeduction of tax liabilityNet wealth computationAppeal timing

Judgment

; -~ J Z91
. A
THE COMMJSSJONER OF WEALTH TAX,.
OUJARAT, AHMEDABAD
v•

. · KANTILAL. MANILAL ETC. ETC.
March.13, 198S

. [R.S: PA1HAK AND E.S. VE~KATARAMIAH., J J,] .

Wealth Tax Act,- Section 2 (m)-. (iii) (a}, scope of - New wealth, com..
putation of - Debt due - Ingredients neceJsary for invoking the bar prescribed
by Section 2 (m) ·(iii) (a}, explained~ Admissibility of the as!essee's claim
for a deduction Of certain sums representing the estimated liabilities on account
of Income Tax and Wea/th Tax.
D
.. , .::For the .asseSsment years 1961-62 and 1962~63: the cOrresponding valuation
.dates' of Which were March-31, 1961 and March 31. 1962,. assessment orders
were made under the Wealth Tax Act on March 24, 1961 and March 23, 1962
respectively while the notice of demands were served on the assessee on Apn1 t 1,
1961 and April 11, 1962 respectively. Against the said notices of demand the
asSesseei preferred' appe<i.ts on May 9, 1961 and May 9; 1962 reSpectiveIY. For
the purpose of determining the as!jiCSsee's net wealth. the assessec's Claim for a
· deductiOn of certain Sums·representing the estimated liabilities on account --or
income tax and Wealth tax was ·rejCcted ir1, bOth · assessinenis 'by the Wealth
Tax Officer: On appeal by the assessee; the Appellate Assistant cOmrriis:
· ·siorier of Wealth Tax allowed a part of the"claim. JD appeall>efoi-e the ApPcl·
late Tribunal, the RevCnue cOnten.ded that sincC the assessee h3.d -disPutcd th•
wealth tax liability of Rs,· 22,679/· in respect of the assessment year 1960-61
and _the sum of Rs. 39,692/· in respect of the assessment ye~ 1961~62, he was
.not CD;titled to a deduction of the sarre, teing barred. by. reason·of the.pro~
visiOnS of seCtion 2(m) (iii) (a) of t~e Wealth Tax Act. : The. Tribunal rejectCd
the said contention and held that section 2 · (m)(a) \vas not ·attract'ed as the
.t3.X b3.d not become p:iyable on the relevant valuation dates .. The Wealth Tax
JiCferCnces made at the instance of the Revenue were decided in favour· of 'the
bf
2sSessCe the High Court of Gujatat by its coinmon judgment in Commlssiimer
'of Wealth Tax v. Kan/I/al Manila/ reported in (1973) 88 J.T.R. 125•. The pre-
sent appeal by special leave arises therefrom.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

. . . _HELD :.1.l . In order to invoke the bar prescribed by _Section 2(m)(iii)
(a) of the Wealth Tax Act it is necessary for the Revenue to establish that bOth
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 9851 3 s.c.tt.

A requirements therein are satisfied, that is to say, that an amount of the tax is
outstanding on the valu.ation date and further that the amount is c]aimed by
the assessee in an appeal as not being payable by him. [302E-F]

1.2 An amount of tax is outstanding if it is payable and has remained
unpaid. In other words, if there is a debt due and there has been no payment
of the debt. There are three stages in respect of an income tax liability. The
tax liability comes into existence on the last day of the previous year relevant
to the assessment year: Thereafter when the assessment proceedings take pJace
an assessment order is made quantifying the assessable income and determining
the tax payable. Thereupon, a notice of demand is served for payment of
the tax, and the tax then becomes payable and a debt becomes due to the
Revenue. A survey of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act contained in
Sections 14 to · 17 and Section 30 makes it clear that in all material respects
C' the scheme of the Wealth· Tax Act is in thi~ regard substantially, the same as
that incorporated in the Income Tax Act. The notice of demand requiring
payment of the tax, interest or penalty is issued pursuant to Section 30 of,'the
Act. If the amount remains unpaid within the periods specified in the ·notice.
the amount of the tax is said to be outstanding. [303D~Fl

1.3' Section 2(m)( iii)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act comes into play only
D after a demand for payment of tax has been made, The clause, read in its
entirety; speakS of a debt owed by the assessee represented by an amount of tax
"Payable in conseqllence of any order"· passed under the relevant tax statute
and· "outstanding on the valuation dates." [303H ; 304AJ

1.4 The expression "debt owed" is a debt which the assessee is under 0
• / '\
an obligation to pay and, therefore, it includes both a liability to pay in. pre..
senti as well as a liability to pay in futur0 an ascertainable sum of money.;
Both kinds ·of .liabilities are included within the expression "debt owed". But··
Section .2(m)(iii)(a) narrows the scope down_ to a liability which exists.in
present time because the clause speaks of tax outstanding in consequence· of an
order passed ·under the relevant taxing statute. [304B~C]

F' 1 ;s In the present case, the notice of demand in each case was served-'
after the valuation date had been passed. There was no demand already· sub~·
sisting on the respective valuation dates. As the notices of demand respeeting···
the wealth tax liability of Rs. 22,679 and Rs. 39,692 were served on the:,
assesSee subSequent to· the valuation· dates, if cannot be said that on· the.. respCc-:.
tive-valuation dates the amount of tax were outstanding, In ·the~rcsuit:a ~
material" requirement of Section 2\m) (iii) (a) is not satisfied and therefore;· it:.
cannot· be ·invoked by the Revenue. [304D-E]

Commissioner of Wea/th Tax v. Kantilal Mani/al, (1973) 88 I.T.R. 12S,
approved.

Doorga,Prosad v. The Secretary of State, (1945) 13 J.T.R. 285, quoted
1

H with , approval;
cw T. v. KANT!LAL MANILAL (Pathak, J.) 299r
Kesoram Idustries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner.of Wealth. Tax A1 ..
(Central), Calcutta, (1966) 59 J.T.R. 767, followed,

1.6 The appeals in the present case, though filed subseq~cnt~to the
respective valuatfon dates, would none-the-less have suffiiced to bring the
second requirement of section 2 (rn) (iii) (a) into operation. BUt for Section 2 -~
(m) (iii) (a) all amount of a tax outstanding on the valuation date would
constitute a debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date, and the assessee
would be entitled to claim its deduction in the process of computing his net
wealth. Parliament, however, intended that if the amount of the tax was
challenged by the assessee <is not being payable by him by recourse to any of
the statutory remedies prescribed in the relevant Act, such claim to dedliction·
would be barred. Plainly, in order to give full effect to that intent it is
immaterial whether the statutory remedy is being availed of on the valuation
date or has been taken thereafter. A challenge by the assessee that the amount c~
outstanding is not payable by him is sufficient to bar his claim to deduction ·
whether the challenge is subsisting on the valuation date or is initiated after
the valuation date has passed. [305 D ; A-CJ

Late-P. Appauoo Pillai v,. Commissioner of Wealth _Tax,. Madras, T

(1973) 91 I.T.R. 138 overtuled.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.. 1311. and.

1312 of 1973.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26/27.6.1972 ofthe
Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Wealth Tax Reference Nos;
3, 4, 20, 25, 29, 32, 32 & 36 of 1970 and I of 1971.

S.fS. Manchanda, B.B. Ahµja, R.N. Poddar and Miss· A.·
Shubhashlni for the Appellant.

S.T. Desai Mrs. A.K. Verma and K.J. ·John for the Respon• • r.·
dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATHAK. J. These appeals are directed against the judgment·\
of the Gujarat High Court disposing of a wealth tax· reference .
and answering the following question of law against" the l ReVC".
nuet--
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right ·in holding that the provisions H.
of s, 2 (m) (iii) (a) were not applicable in respect· of liabili·-
'
300 SUPREME COURT RllPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.l\.

A~ ties arising under the wealth tax assessments of the asses.
see for the assessment years 1960-61and1961-62 ?"

" . Foi the purpose of determining the assessee's net wealth in
assessment.proceedings under the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the
assessment. years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the correspo.nding valuation
dates being March 31, 1961 and March 31, 1962, the assessee cl~imed
a:iled,uction of certain sums representing the estimated liabilities on
account of income tax and wealth tax. The claim was rejected
by the Wealth Tax Officer in both assessments. On appeal by the
assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax
allowed a part of the claim. In the appeal pertaining to .the asses;.
nlerit 'year 1961-62, he allowed a deduction of Rs. 22,679 on
.ai;count of weaith tax relating to the assessment year 1960-61, Rs.
39,692 on account of wealth tax r.elating to the· assessment year
1961-62 and Rs. 2,25,Q53 on account of income tax for the assess-
ment 'y'ear 196 l,62. In the appeal pertaining to the assessment
year 1962-63, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the total
claim of Rs. 9,02,377 comprising a deduction of Rs 39,692 on
account of wealth tax relating lb the assessment year 1961-62, Rs.
77,716 on account of wealth tax for the asse,sment year 1962-63
and the balance on account of income tax for the assessment year
I 9~2-63., The .Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. In
E the appeal for the .assessment year 1961-62 in contended inter alia,
th~t the "assessee was not entitled to a deduction of the wealth tax I

liability of Rs. 22,679 in respect of the assessment year 1960-61
b\'cause. he had .disputed the said liability in appeal and, therefore,
the deduction was barred by reason of s. 2(m) (iii) (a) of the. Wealth
Tax Act. Similarly, in the appeal for the essessment year 1962.63,
the . J'lievenue urged th~t the assessee was not entitled to a dedu>tipn
pf the wealth tax liability of Rs. 39,696 for the assessaierit year
1961·62 a• be bad disputed that liability in appeal and the deductioi\.
was barred bys. 2(ml (Iii) (a) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal
did not accept the contention of the Revenue and held thats. 2(m)
(ill) (a) was not attracted in respect of those· liabilties as Jhey had
Mt ·become payable on .the relevant valuation dates. At the instance
ofllle Revenue,' a reference, being Wealth Tax Reference No. 20 of
1970, was made to the Gujarat High Court for its opinion Qn ~he
question of law set forth earlier.
. . ..
Fft:may be mentioned that another question was also framed
in th~~f~ere11ce, 11nd. tl\a\ t)lis r~f~r~11~e ~!011~ with §~v~rl\\ 11th~f
c.w.T v. KANTILAL MANILAL (Pathak, J.) 301
'· A-
references were dispo;ed of together by the Gujarat High Court by
its judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Kantilal Mani/al.'
Against that judgment corresponding special leave petitions were
filed by the Revenue in this Court, but all the special leave petitions,
except Special Leave Petitions (Civil)Ncs. 505 and 506 of 1973, arising
out of Wealth Tax Reference No. 20 of 1970, were dismissed on
the merits, and in respect' of these two special leave petitions the grant
of special leave was restricted to the consideration of the question
set forth earlier.

While dealing with ·the question whether· the provisions of
s. 2(m) (iii) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act barred the deduction of the
wealth tax liabilities claimed by . the assessee the High Court held
that as the liabilities were not outstanding on the respective valuation
dates s. 2(m) (iii) (a) was not attracted even though the assessee
had challenged in appeal that the liabilities were not payable by
him.

In these appeals, Shri S.C. Manchanda, appearing for the
Revenue, contends. that the High Court has erred insofar as it has
held that the wealth. tax liabilities were not outstanding on the
valuation dates. His case is that the bar imposed by s. '2(ni) (iii) (a)
- operates against the claim to deduction made by the assessee. _Shri
S.T. Desai, appearing for the assessee, urges that s. 2(m) (iii) (a) .
.is not attracted because no amount of tax was outstanding on the
respective valuation dates and in any event, he says, the appeals,
ch~llenging those liabilities were not pending on the valuation dates;
and . therefore the further requirement, according to him, of the..
§\atvte w~s not sati~fied. ·

$ection..2(m) of the W~aJtJi Tax.Act provides : -
. ''(m) "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggre-
gate value computed in accordance with the provisions: ·'
of this Act .of all the assets, wherever located, belonging fo·
the assessee on, the valuation date, including assets required
to be included in his net wealth as on that date under · G
this Act, is in excees of the aggregate value of all the debts
owed· by the assessee on the valuation date other than~
(i) xx xx itll
-_..,.;---......:------~·
(ll (ln3), ~8 !.T,R, 1?4 1
302: SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 s.c.R.

A. (ii) xx xx xx
(iii) the amount of the tax, penalty or interest payable in
consequence of any order passed under or in pursuance
of this Act or any law relating to taxation of income
or profits, or the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (34 of 1953),
B, the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957), or the
Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958),- +
(a) which is outstandfog on the valuation date and is
claimed by the assessee in appeal, revision or other
proceeding as not being payable by him ; or
(b) which, although not claimed by the assessee as not
c.
being payable by !him. is nevertheless outstanding
for a period of more than twelve months on the
valuation date."

In the process of computing the net wealth, the statute
D!'. requires the aggregation of the value of all the debts owed by the
assessee on the valuation date, except those debts which are speci-
fically described in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). We are concerned
with sub-clause (iii) (a). A· debt which ordinarily falls within the
scope of the substantive provision of s. 2(m) cannot be taken into
account for the purpose of determining the net wealth if it falls
E within the term of sub-clause (iii) (a) of s. 2(m). Sub-clause (iii) (a)
speaks the amount of the tax, penalty or interest payable in conse-
quence of any order passed under or in pursuance of any of the tax
laws mentioned therein, which is outstanding on the valuation date
and is claimed by the assessee in appeal, revision or other proceeding
as not being payable by him.
F
For the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 under reference,
the corresponding valuation dates, as we have mentioned earlier
are March:31,1961 and March 31,1962 respectively. The claim to
deduction in the wealth tax assessment for the assessment year 1961-
62 relates to Rs. 22,679 representing the wealth tax liability for
G the assessment year 1960-61. The assessment order for the assess-
ment .year 1960-61 was made on March 24, 1961 but the notice of
demand ~as served on the assessee on April 11, 1961. It is apparent
that the notice of demand was served some days after the valuation
date, March 31, 1961. In the wealth tax assessment of the assessment
H year 1962-63 the deduction claimed relates to the "ealth tax liability
of Rs. 39,692 for the assessment year 1961-62. The assessment order
6w.f. v. r{Ai-it1LAL MANrLAL (Pathak,}) · !o~
on March 23 1962 but the notice of demand was served on April
ll,1962 and, ~hat notice of demand was also served a few days after
_the relevant valuation date, March 31,1962. Therefore, the notice-of
demand in each case was served after the valuation date had _passed.
,There was no demand already subsisting on the respective valuation
dates.

In order to invoke section 2 (m) (iii) (a) the Revenue, must
establish that an amount of the tax was outstanding on the valuation
date. An amount of tax is outstanding if it is payable and has' re-
mained unpaid. In other words, if there is a debt due and there has
been no payment of the debt; In a case under the Indian Income
Tax Act, 1922, Doorga Prosad v. The Secretary of State, (1 ) the Privy .c
Council laid down that an income tax liability becomes a debt due
when payment Lof the tax is demanded by a notice issued under
,section 29 of the Act. There are three stages in respect of an income
tax liability. - The tax liability comes into existence on the last day
- of the previous year relevant to the assessment year. Thereafter
_when the assessment proceedings take place, an assessment order is oD
made quantifying the assessable income and determining the tax
payable. Thereupon, a notice of demand is seryed for payment , of
the tax, and the tax then becomes payable and a debt becomes due
to the Revenue. That was the position under the Indian Inccillle
Tax Act, 1922 and continues to be the position under the Income
Tax Act, 1961. A survey of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act
will demonstrate that in all material respects the scheme of the.,
Wealth Tax Act is in this regard substantially the same as that incor-
porated in the Income Tax Act. The provisions for the assessment are
of an assessee are contained in sections 14 to 17A of the Wealth .Tax
Act. The notice of demand requiring payment of the tax, jnterest or
.F
_penalty is issued pursuant to section 30 of the Act. If the amoµnt
remains unpaid within the period specified in the notice the amount
of the tax is said to be outstanding.

A question was raised whether for the purposes of ~ttracting
section 2(m) (iii) (a) it is not sufficient that the tax liability .h~s ~
accrued and it is necessary that a tax demand_should have Ileen made
by the assessing authority. Jt seems to us that section 2(m} (iii) . (a)
comes into play only after a demand for payment of tax has been
made. The clause, read in its entirety, speaks of a debt owed by,the
-----------------------------~
(1) (1945) 13 I.T.R. 285. . --- 'Htt
3o4 tr 9ssi 3s.c.it
A ·asscssee represented by an amount of tax ·"payable in consequence
of any o·rder" passed under the relevant ta~ statute "outstanding on
the valuation date". 1he expression "debt owed" has been held by
this Court in Kesoram lndustries & Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner
•ofWea/th Tax (Central), Calcutta, (1) to mean a debt which the asses-
see is under an obligation to pay and, therefore, it includes both·a
.B liability to pay in praesenti as well as a liability to pay in future an
ascertainable sum of money. ·Both kinds of liabilities are included
·within 'the expression "debt owed". But when we refer to the clause
under consideration, it narrows· the scope down to a liability which
exists in present time. That is so because the clause speaks of tax
·outstanding in consequence of an order passed under the relevant
taicing statute. As discussed earlier, tax becomes payable in conse-
quence of such order when a notice of demand is served on the
assessee.

In the present case, it is clear that as the notices of demand
respecting the wealth tax liability of Rs 22,679 and Rs. 39,692 •
were served on the assessee subsequent to the valuation dates, it can-
not be said that on the respective valuation dates the amounts of
' taic were outstanding. In the result a material requirement of s. 2
(m) (iii) (a) is not satisfied and therefore that provision cannot be
'invoked by the Revenue.

We now propose to consider the other point in controversy. As
• is apparent, if the Revenue desires to invoke section .2 (m) (iii) (a),
'it must establish not only that the amount of the tax, penalty or
interest envisaged in that provision is outstanding on the valuation
. date but it must also show that the amount is claimed by the assessee
in appeal, revision or other proceeding as not being payable by him •
. The question is wether it is a necessary requirement of the provision
, that the appeal, revision or other proceeding should be pending on •
the valuation date itself or it suffices that the appeal, revision or
other proceeding is filed subsequent to the valuation date. In the
present case the appeal against the wealth tax assessment order for
··.G· the assessment year 1960-6! was filed on May 9, 1961, and the appeal
against the wealth tax assessment order for the assessment year.1961-
, 62 was filed on May 9, 1962. Both the appeals were filed, therefore,
· after the respective valuation dates, March 31, 1961 ·and March 31,
• 1962 corresponding to the assessment years I 961-62 and 1962-63

(I) (1966) 59 I.T.R. 767.
t:i.w.f. v. KANTILAL MANILA!. (Pathak, }.)
under reference •. ·But for section 2(m) (iii) an amount.of.a. tax out·
standing on the v~luation date would consiitute 'a d.ebt. ~wed by the
assessee on the valuation dat~, and the assessee "ould be entitled to
claim its deduction in the procoss of computing his net wealth.
Parliament, however, intended that if the amount of the tax was
challenged by the assessee as not being payable.by him by recourse
to any of.the statutory remedies prescribed in tlie televant Act," such
claim to deduction would be barred. Plainly; in order to give full
effect to that intent it is immaterial whether the ·statutory remedy is
being availed of on the valuation date or has been taken thereafter.
A challenge by the assessee that the amount outstanding is not pay-
able by him is sufficient to bar his clail)l to deduction whether the
challenge is subsisiin'g on 'the valuation d~te or is. fn.itiated afier the
valuation date has passed. Accordingly, 'we are of opinion that the
appeals in the present case, though filed subsequent to :the respective
valuation dates, would nonetheless have sufficed to bring the second
requirement of section 2(ni) (iii) (a) into operation. "The contrary
view in respect of section 2 (m) (iii) (a) adopted by the .Madras High
Court in Late P. Appavoo Pillai v. Commisiiolie"r of Wealth Tax,
Madras(') appears to us to be incorrect.

• However, as in order to invoke the bar prescfibed. by section 2
(nl) (iii) (a), it is necessary ·for the Revenue tp establish tl)at bqth
requirements are satisfied, that is to say, that an amount of the tax
is outstanding on the valuation date and further thatthe amount is
claimed by the assessee in an appeal as not being payable by him, and
the Revenue has been unable to sh.ow that in the present case the
sume of Rs . .22,679 and Rs. 39,692 representing the wealih ;.ia'x
liabilities for the assessment years 196,0-61. and 1961,62.were out-
standing on the respective valuation· dates corresponding to the
assessment year under reference, the Revenue must fail.
. - .. r ~ ..0
In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
.. '
-'

-:- ..
' -.· "t; • •: • ' •
S,R .... Appeals .dismissed.·
- .. - " ~. ' .,
,. ''"';
I.

(I) (1973) 91 I.T.R. 130. _·.,_·::,:-~