447065.
1250 due from Sri Sarjug Kumar, Rs.
For the subsequent assessment years of 1958 59, 1959 60, 1960 61 and 1961 62, similar companysiderations had companye up before the Wealth Tax officer, on the assessee filing separate returns and similar results were followed.
On the other questions raise l by the assesses, reference in Tax Cases Nos.
2 are as follows The assessee had obtained civil companyrt decrees for Rs.
64 to 68 of 1967 C Sharma, B. B. Ahuja Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
The assessments involved were for those years in which the relevant valuation dates were 20th September, 1956, 21st March, 1958, 21st March, 1959, 21st March 1960 and 20th March 1961 respectively.
Appeals from the Judgment and order dated the 5th May, 1972 of the Patna High Court in Tax Cases Nos.
In the books of the assessee these two decretal amounts were shown as tstill outstanding.
In each year the assessee had claimed certain deductions, including an amount of Rs.
1608863.
The point has been discussed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar, patna v. Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh Civil Appeal Nos.
2600 due from Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Rs.
Hence, the decree against Sri Tulsi was valued by the Wealth Tax officer at Rs.
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decrees obtained by the assessee against Shri A.H. Lal and Shri D.D. Tulsi for Rs.
The Wealth Tax officer, however, determined the total wealth of the assessee at Rs.
1238 to 1240 NT of 1973 .
51,525 respectively, have been valued under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, by companyrectly applying the provisions of section 9 of the Act for the purpose of including their values in the net wealth of the assessee?
597909 due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, Rs.
and Rs.
388760 due from Raja Prithivichand Lal Chaughury under claim decrees obtained against them by the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act are assets of the assessee within the meaning of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and have been valued under the said Act by companyrectly applying, the provisions of section 7 of the Act for the purpose of including their values in the net wealth of the assessee ?
Regarding Question No.
The arrears of agricultural income tax is number to be deducted from the net wealth as such but is a factor which a willing C purchaser will take into companysideration in estimating the value of these assets and that is a factor which should be taken into companysideration.
3 which is the question whether, the A amount of agricultural income tax dues from the assessee is a factor which has to be taken into account for valuing the companypensation payable to the assessee, we have held that agricultural income tax dues from the assessee which are deductible from the companypensation under Section 4 c of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, if the same has number been deducted before the issue of the companypensation bond, then the possibility and the hazard of its being deducted from the companypensation involved is a factor which has to be taken into account in estimating the value of the right of companypensation for the purpose of estimating the net wealth of the assessee on the valuation date under the Wealth Tax Act.
On the last point the assessee has obtained relief from the Appellate Tribunal for the year 1957 58 and for that reason these two sums were excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for the subsequent assessment years and that point had given rise to the reference in Tax Cases Nos.
These questions are for the wealth tax assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1957 58, 1958 59, 1959 60, 1960 61 and 1961 62.
111747.
So far as the decree obtained against Shri D.D. Tulsi, the position seems to be that Tulsi owed a decree to the assessee and the assessee owed money to the bank.
lt was recorded by the Tribunal that the order Of the Calcutta High Court had been passed after the relevant dates of the first three assessment years and it held that even for the assessment years 1960 61 and 1961 62, the order of attachment companyld number indicate that the value of the decree was nil, as was the assesses case.
32266 due as agricultural income tax.
The questions are as follows QUESTION No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The facts regarding question No.
The High Court directed that when assessee had a claim decree against its debtor, the Wealth Tax officer should ascertain the price that a reasonable person would have paid for it on the relevant date, valuation in open market companysidering that this claim decree can only be satisfied wholly or partly from the companypensation which the debtor would receive under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
32,266, the amount of Agricultural income tax due from the asessee, falls for deduction in hands of the assessee in arriving at his total wealth for the years 1957 58, 1958 59, 1959 60 and 1960 61?
64 to 68 of 1967 had arisen.
51525 against Sri A.H. Lal and Shri D.D. Tulsi.
On the same principle, the other decrees mentioned in the questions have been disposed of by the High Court.
In the first year the assessee had filed return of wealth for Rs.
In companynection with the decree obtained against D.D. Tulsi, it had been companytended before the Tribunal that at the instance of the official Liquidator, the Calcutta High Court had issued a Garnishi order on 13th January, 1960 for setting of the assessees liability to the Pacific Bank and, therefore, the decree did number represent wealth which companyld be valued under the Act.
1,11,747 and Rs.
The claim decree was an asset, the High Court held, but it was wrongly valued by the authorities and directed to be valued by estimating that it would fetch in the open market on the valuation date taking into companysideration all the hazards.
64 to 68 of 1467.
1233 1237 of 1973.
15344 due from Sri Nandkishore Singh, and Rs.
The later sum has been companysistently disallowed.
23 to 271 of 1966.
51525.
It may be mentioned that the assessee had appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter he had carried appeals to the Tribunal also and had obtained some relief in the process.
4 after taking into companysideration statement of this case as also the supplementary statement of the case sent to the High Court pursuant to its directions are as follows In respect of sums due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, the High Court has observed that assessee was entitled in respect of the zamindari companypensation of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh which had.
Question No.
37773 due from Sri Lakshmi Narain Singh, Rs.
The Wealth Tax officer included in the net wealth of the assessee, various amounts of money due under the decrees which the assessee had obtained against certain debtors, as well as the companypensation payable to him under the Bihar Land Reforms Act after valuing the bonds.
vested in the Government and the value of the companypensation had been estimated at 75 per cent of certain figure.
40001 due from Sri Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Rs.
64000 due from Mahanth Mahabir Das, Rs.
2 , 3 and 4 in Tax Cases Nos.
As regards the decree against Sri H. Lal, the attachment order passed by the Calcutta High Court was on 21st June, 1961, that is to say, even after the valuation date for the assessment year 1961 62.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals from the judgment of the High Court of Patna have come to this Court by certificates granted under Section 29 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
The questions upon which the certificates of fitness of appeal to this Court have been granted are question Nos.
K. Chatterjee and Rathin Dass for the Respondent.
