High Court Of Madras
A. Varaprasada Rao vs. CIT
Section WT 2(e)(2)(ii), WT 5(1)(vi)
R. Jayasimha Babu & K.P. Sivasubramaniam, JJ.
TC No. 971 of 1990
21st August, 2002
Counsel Appeared
P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Assessee : T.C.A. Ramanujam, for the Revenue
JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. :
The question referred to us for consideration under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of annuities purchased by the assessee from the LIC in respect of remuneration received by him from different producers by paying a single premium insurance is includible in the net wealth of the assessee ?
The assessee is a film director. At his instance, the producers of various films purchased certain annuities in the LIC, in respect of the remuneration payable to the assessee by paying single insurance premium. The assessee’s claim that the market value of the annuities received by him was not includible in his net wealth was rejected by the WTO. Though the assessee was successful in his appeal to the CIT, the view of the AO was restored on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue. The annuities in this case having been purchased at the instance of the assessee, these annuities fall within the scope of the definition “assets” in s. 2(e) of the WT Act, 1957, and is not excluded from the scope of the definition as s. 2(e)(2)(ii) of the WT Act, which refers to a right to annuity is inapplicable, as the purchase of the annuity though not by the assessee was pursuant to the contract with the assessee. Sec. 2(e)(2)(ii) of the WT Act refers to a right to any annuity (not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee) purchased by any other person pursuant to the contract with the assessee. The annuities having been purchased at the instance of the assessee by the film producers whose films the assessee had directed, these annuities do not fall within the scope of s. 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Act and constitute the assets of the assessee. The question referred to us is, therefore, required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The assessee, however, is entitled to avail of the benefit of s. 5(1)(vi) of the WT Act to the extent provided therein. Sec. 5 deals with assets which are not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. Sub-cl. (vi) as it stood at the relevant time and was applicable during this assessment year read thus : “(vi) the right or interest of the assessee in any policy of insurance before the monies covered by the policies become due and payable to the assessee : Provided that in the case of a policy of insurance the premium or other payment whereon is payable during a period of less than ten years, the amount that shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee under this clause shall be a sum that bears to the value of the right or interest of the assessee in the policy the same proportion as the number of years during which the premium or other payment on the policy is payable bears to ten.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. Yuvraj Amrinder Singh (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 211 : (1985) 156 ITR 525 (SC), after referring to that proviso to s. 5(1)(vi) rejected the submission that had been made before it that the policy of insurance referred to in cl. (vi) must mean a policy based on human life and that too where periodical premia are payable and as such an annuity on life which consists of lump sum investment followed by deferred annual or monthly payment is excluded. “It is impossible to read the underlined words in the proviso in this manner which has the effect of unduly narrowing down the expression ‘any policy of insurance’ used in the main sub-clause which, as indicated earlier, is of very wide import covering all types of insurance policies like life, marine, fire etc.” The words which had been underlined by the apex Court were “premium or other payment thereon is payable during a period of less than ten years”. The Court further held : “in our view, the proper way to read the proviso would be to treat the main provision as creating or granting an exemption and the proviso carving out something from the exemption.”
8. Having regard to this, the fact that though the annuities do constitute an asset of the assessee and are, therefore, liable to the WT Act, the extent to which that asset is taxable will have to be worked out by applying the proviso under s. 5(1)(vi)—an exercise the Tribunal has not done. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to compute the extent to which the annuities qualify for exemption under s. 5(1)(vi) of the WT Act.
[Citation : 260 ITR 489]
