9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x as under : "Immovable Properties : Building leased out to Perinthalmanna Rice & Oil Mills, Rs. Perinthalmanna 40,000.00 State Warehousing Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; ------------------------- In the assessment made on 20-12-1979, the WTO accepted the assessee's claim and taxed the immovable property of Rs. 46,050. As the WTO noticed that the assets in the rice and oil mills at Perinthalmanna and Premier Oil Mills, Pollachi were leased out to two firms by name Perinthalmanna Rice & Oil Mills and Iqbal & Co., respectively, and as the assessee was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the AAC the assessee preferred the present appeal. 4. At the time of hearing, the assessee's counsel urged that the WTO was not justified in resorting to section 35 as there was no mistake apparent from the record. He further pointed out that wealth-tax is levied under the power derived under entry 86 of the Union List of the Constitution of India and that the entry authorised tax on capital value of the assets of individuals and companies and as per section 5(1)(xxxi) the exemption is with reference to the value of the assets forming part of an industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee. From the entry 86 it is clear that the criterion for levying wealth-tax is the ownership of the capital assets. From section 5(1)(xxxi) it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actually engaged in the manufacture of salt and, consequently, could not get exemption under section 5(1)(xxxi). He further submitted that in view of the above arguments advanced the decision of the Madras High Court need not be followed. 5. The departmental representative submitted that the WTO was justified in invoking section 35 as the assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) and the WTO granted the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii). Section 5(1)(xxxii) comes into play only when the assets forming part of an industrial undertaking belonged to a firm or an AOP of which the assessee is a partner or a member as the case may be. In this case, as the assessee is the owner of the assets, section 5(1)(xxxii) is not applicable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al assets which the assessee owns,..." Section 2(m) of the Act defines net wealth as the amount by which the aggregate value of all the assets belonging to the assessee in excess of the aggregate value of debts owed by the assessee. Thus, it is clear that wealth-tax is levied on the total assets owned by the assessee and that ownership of the assets is the criterion for the levy or exemption as the case may be. The heading of section 5(1) refers to 'Exemptions in respect of certain assets'. Section 5(1) says that wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following 'assets' and such 'assets' shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Section 5(1)(xxxi) speaks of the value of assets forming part of an ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
