TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment to income-tax of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 was completed on February 10, 1972. As a result of the assessment, the assessee became entitled to a refund of Rs. 82,264. The refund had arisen as the assessee had deposited excess advance tax in response to the demand notice issued to him by the ITO under s. 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) (for short the " I.T. Act"). The final tax determined was much less and, therefore, the assessee became entitled to (refund of) Rs. 82,264. The ITO while computing the wealth of the assessee in respect of the aforesaid four assessment years included the aforesaid amount of Rs. 82,264 in the net wealth of the assessee. An appeal was filed by the assessee against the orders of the WTO. The AAC by his order dated April 26, 1973, confirmed the order of the WTO, in so far as it related to the inclusion of Rs. 82,264 in the wealth of the assessee. Further appeals were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order dated December 20, 1974, allowed the appeals and deleted the amount of Rs. 82,264 from the assessments. Reference application under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (No. 27 of 1957) (fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Act includes the value of any assets held in a business or profession and the time (whether fixed originally or on extension) for furnishing the return of his total income or, as the case may be, of the total income of the other person aforesaid for the said assessment year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, expires on or after the 30th day of June aforesaid, the return in respect of such net wealth for the assessment year may be furnished before the expiry of the time for furnishing such return of income. " According to s. 16(1) of the Act, if the WTO is satisfied without requiring the presence of the assessee or production by him of any evidence that a return made under s.14 or s.15 is correct and complete, he shall assess the net wealth of the assessee and determine the amount of wealth-tax payable by him or the amount refundable to him on the basis of such return. The Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 482 held that in order to constitute a " debt " within the meaning of the expression in s. 2(m) of the W.T. Act, it is not a pre-requisite that there must be an ascertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 18A. He says that this shows that it is really the Government which ultimately becomes the debtor and there is no question of any debt being owed by the assessee. He further urges that the word 'debt' connotes a definite fixed amount and does not include merely a liability to pay a sum which is not ascertained. In our opinion, the High Court was right in answering the question in favour of the assessee. Section 18A(10) provides that if the assessee does not submit a revised estimate under sub-section (2) of section 18A, and he does not pay on the specified date any instalment of tax that he is required to pay under sub-section (1), he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such instalment or instalments, and if he does submit a revised estimate but does not pay an instalment in accordance there with on the date or dates specified in sub-section (1), he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such instalment or instalments. Under sub-section (11), any sum paid or recovered from the assessee in pursuance of the provisions of section 18A is given credit towards the tax due in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax as finally determined on assessment under the respective enactments and not the tax as computed in accordance with the returns filed by the assessee. In that case, Assam Oil Co. Ltd.'s case [1966] 60 ITR 267 (SC) has been referred to. perusal of the decision in Kantilal Manilal's case [1973] 88 ITR 125 (Guj), shows that there was provision for payment of tax in the balance-sheet and, in that connection, the question arose whether the provision for payment of the tax made therein entitles the assessee to the deduction of the amount on the valuation date. Kantilal Manilal's case [1973] 88 ITR 125 (Guj) has been referred to by the judges of the Gujarat High Court in Kantilal Manilal's case [1973] 90 ITR 289 (Guj). One of the questions involved in that case was whether the deduction admissible is in respect of the tax payable pursuant to the relevant return filed by the assessee or whether such deduction is admissible in respect of the tax as finally determined on the assessment and in regard to that the learned judges held that this was concluded by the decision rendered in Kantilal Mani Lal's case [1973] 88 ITR 125 (Guj), and that the tax liability admitted as deduction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 31, 1968, March 31, 1969, March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971. The assessment of income-tax of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 was completed on February 10, 1972, under s. 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act and it was thereafter that the amount of Rs. 82,264 could be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee had no claim or title to the amount of Rs. 82,264 for refund prior to February 10, 1972, the date when the assessment of income-tax regarding the assessment year 1967-68 was made by the ITO concerned and for that matter it could not appear as part of the net wealth of the assessee on the valuation date concerned in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 82,264 was not includible in the wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. The question referred to this court for decision is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The office shall take action in accordance with s. 27(6) of the Act. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
