High Court Of Madras
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Meenakshi Automobile (P) Ltd.
Sections FA1983 40(3)(vi)
Asst. Year 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90
N.V. Balasubramanian & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
Tax Case Nos. 102 to 105 of 1998
20th November, 2002
Counsel Appeared
T. Ravikumar, for the Applicant : Philip George, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. :
There are four assessment years involved, viz., 1986-87 to 1989-90 and the common question of law referred to us by the Tribunal reads as under:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth-tax within the meaning of s. 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983?”
2. A similar issue arose in another Tax Case No. 93 of 1998 and we have held that the Tribunal should consider the matter afresh in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Universal Plast Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 95 : (1999) 237 ITR 454 (SC) after taking into account the deed of lease, the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. In the instant case the Tribunal has also not decided the question with reference to the deed of lease, the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. We have held that to decide the question whether the assessee was using the asset as a business asset, the object clause of the assessee is one of the relevant factors, but the Tribunal should consider all aspects of the matter and then decide the question whether the asset was exploited by the assessee as a business asset or was used by the assessee as an owner thereof in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Universal Plast Ltd.’s case (supra). Since the factual aspect has not been gone into by the Tribunal in full detail, we are of the opinion that this matter also should be remanded to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee has also not disputed that the matter requires remand. Accordingly, we decline to answer the common question of law referred to us but the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider the question afresh. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 263 ITR 424]
