High Court Of Allahabad
Wealth Tax Officer vs. Ram Deen Singh
Asst. Year 1971-72
M.C. Agarwal & S. Rafat Alam, JJ.
WT Ref. No. 313 of 1981
15th October, 1999
Counsel Appeared : Prakash Krishna, for the Revenue : Bharat ji Agarwal, for the Assessee
BY THE COURT :
The Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the agricultural land in village Kotia, Tehsil Bindki, district Fatehpur, belonged to the undivided family of theassessee and not to the assessee in his individual capacity ?” We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the CIT and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, Senior Advocate for the assessee-respondent. The assessee is an individual and an assessment on him under the WT Act was made for the asst. yr. 1971-72 as an individual. The total wealth was determined at Rs. 1,91,680. In that year net wealth upto Rs. 1,50,000 was not taxable. The net wealth of the assessee included the agricultural land valued at Rs. 1,95,000 which according to the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his HUF consisting of himself his two sons and wife. The assessee appealed to the AAC who held that the agricultural land was the property of the aforesaid HUF. He also held that the investment in money-lending business (Rs. 70,000) cash and ornaments (Rs. 68,680) which were included in the net wealth of the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual and belonged to HUF. By the exclusion of the aforesaid assets, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit and, therefore, the learned AAC quashed the assessment. This has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue has not challenged the Tribunalâs finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments. Since these items stand excluded from the net wealth of the assessee, the inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth after exemption under s. 5 of the Act, would be below the taxable limit. Therefore, in view of the other findings of the Tribunal, the question that has been referred for the opinion of this Court is merely of academic interest. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. The reference is returned unanswered.
[Citation : 248 ITR 668]