High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj
Section WT 2(e)
Ashutosh Mohunta & Mehinder Singh Sullar, JJ.
WT Ref. No. 3 of 2006
29th March, 2010
Counsel appeared :
Krishan Mehta, for the CIT : Aman Bansal, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J. :
The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present case and emanating from the record are that the assessee was a partner in the firm M/s Mahajan Overseas, which had made certain claims of cash incentive to the Central Government in the matter of Export Promotion Council. The WTO included the amount equal to the assessee’s share as her net wealth. However, the AAC of IT ordered the exclusion of the aforesaid amount, vide order dt. 23rd Sep., 1986 (Annex. C). Aggrieved by the order (Annex. C), the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed, vide order dt. 21st Aug., 1987 (Annex. D). The application of the Revenue for referring the matter to this Court was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dt. 19th Jan., 1988 (Annex. A).
2. The Revenue did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annex. A) and filed the instant case, which was admitted to consider the following question of law :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee’s share in cash incentive amounting to Rs. 32,875 due to the firm M/s Mahajan Overseas, Panipat from Central Government Handloom Export Promotion Council was not liable to wealth-tax ?”
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their valuable help.
4. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the share of the assessee in cash incentive/duty draw back due to the firm was includible in her net wealth or not ?
5. Having gone through the record and the relevant provisions of the WT Act (for short “the Act”), we are of the considered view that the amount in question of the share of the assessee in cash incentive and duty draw back did not represent any assets. The indicated amount of incentive is a personal reward for promotion of export of handloom goods given by the Handloom Export Promotion Council. Such reward remittance do not fall within the purview of movable or immovable property and cannot possibly be termed as “assets” as defined under s. 2(e) of the Act, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, the entire wealth-tax liability in this case is very meagre.
6. Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The instant reference is disposed of accordingly.
[Citation : 325 ITR 341]
