9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Rs. 75,000 in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 ? " During the assessment to income-tax of the same assessee for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, additions have been made to the disclosed income on the basis that the assessee had been carrying on other business benami for the assessee in the name of Raman and Company. Large amounts were therefore added to the income by the assessing authorities and it is on the basis that this income was available with the assessee as an asset on the respective valuation dates which are March 31, 1960, March 31, 1961, and March 31, 1962, for the three assessment years, that additions were made by the Wealth-tax Officer of a sum of Rs. 80,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date other than,- . . . . . " It is unnecessary for our purpose to refer to the exclusions contained in the definition. " Valuation date ", in relation to any year for which an assessment is to be made under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, means the last day of the previous year as defined in section 3 of the Income-tax Act if an assessment were to be made under that Act for that year (vide section 2((q)). The assets tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent to the relative accounting periods were made with the estimated income cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the estimated income is unreal, notional or fictitious. This case is of no help in deciding the question nor do we think the decision of this court in Income-tax Referred Case No. 24 of 1966 has any application. That was a case in which a particular asset was admittedly in existence immediately prior to the valuation date. The burden then was cast on the assessee to prove that the asset did not exist on the valuation date. In the absence of such proof, the asset was taken to have existed on the valuation date. The assessee had not admitted that the income found to have accrued due to him during the relative accounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
