9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... walior (P.) Ltd. She retired from service on 31-3-1975. The assessee had a deposit of Rs. 70,162 on 31-3-1977, the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, with Birla Group of Officers' fund. The WTO was of the view that the balance in the provident fund account ceases to be provident fund money after retirement and so it is liable to wealth-tax. The WTO, accordingly, included the amount of Rs. 70,162 in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78. 3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the delay in refunding the amount cannot be attributed to her. In support of the claim for exemption in respect of the amount deposited in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after retirement and that for this reason, the amount deposited in the provident fund account of the assessee is not to be included in her net wealth by virtue of the exemption available under section 5(1)(xvii). It is further submitted that the amount deposited in the provident fund account of the assessee was not made available to her immediately after her retirement and that it was only after the necessary sanction had been accorded after the valuation date that the amount became payable and was actually paid to her. It was, thus, submitted that for all these reasons, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in excluding the amount deposited in the provident fund account of the assessee from her net wealth. 6. In reply, the learned depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyer to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925, applies or which is a recognised provident fund within the meaning of clause (38) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act') shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee and wealth-tax shall not be payable in respect of this amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that the amount deposited in the provident fund account of the assessee should not be included in her net wealth, has also followed the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. T. R. passed in [IT Appeal No. 193 (Chd.) of 1980, dated 18-3-1982]. In that case, the assessee had retired from the service on 29-2-1976. The order sanctioning payment of the provident fund was made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion date one of the conditions stood fulfilled. However, on the relevant date the assessee was no longer an employee. So, the second condition is not satisfied in this case, with the result that section 5(1)(xvii) is not attracted and the assessee is not entitled to the exemption available thereunder. The amount deposited in the provident fund account belonged to the assessee on the valuation date despite the fact that the order sanctioning payment of the amount was passed after the valuation date. Even though the amount was not paid to the assessee on or before the valuation date, yet it formed part of her assets as the amount belonged to her even on the valuation date. By virtue of section 2(m), the amount in question was includible in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
