9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and receive from the trusts/trust to be paid to her out of the corpus of the trust funds, was includible in her net wealth on the relevant valuation date? 2. The assessee, who is the respondent, is an individual. She is a beneficiary under two trusts the first made by the assessee herself dated April 23rd, 1949 and the second made by Shri Manmohandas Madhavadas Amersey and dated December 24th, 1953. Under Clause 2 of the first deed of trust, which is dated April 23rd, 1949 it was provided as follows: ...the Trustees shall pay to the Settlor on a written demand being made by the settlor out of the corpus of the Trust Fund a sum not exceeding Rs. 25,000 (twenty five thousand) in all either in one lumpsum at one time or in different sums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-73 by the Wealth Tax Officer. He valued her right at Rs. 35,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the value of this right could not be included in the wealth tax assessments of the assessee for all the eight assessment years. He said that in any event, for the assessment years. 1971-72 and 1972-73 Rs. 10,000 under the 2nd trust could not be so included as it was already received by the assessee and included in her net wealth. The Tribunal has also held that the right to receive these amounts under the two trust deeds is not an asset within the meaning of the term under the Wealth Tax Act. It therefore cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal has held that this right to withdraw the amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee within the meaning of the term under the Wealth-Tax Act. The Court said that such a right merely to renew a lease is not an interest in property. It was an option which may never be exercised; and cannot, until exercised, constitute property. The same reasoning would apply to the present case also. 8. We may add that neither of the parties appearing before us was able to point out what was the decision in the references which had been sent to this Court in respect of other assessment years pertaining to the same assessee. Hence we have decided the matter on its own merit without any reference to any previous decisions in the assessee's case. 9. In the premises, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
