Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sheo Kumar Gupta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWealth-tax Reference No. 348 of 1972
Judge
Reported in[1978]111ITR92(All)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 2; Finance Act, 1965 - Sections 68
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentSheo Kumar Gupta
Appellant AdvocateDeokinandan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNone
Excerpt:
- .....the department has not been able to persuade us that the view taken by the division bench needs reconsideration. in the circumstances, following the ratio of the decision in b. k. sharma's case : [1977]110itr902(all) , we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. as nobody appeared for the assessee there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. The Income-tax, Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, referred the following question for the opinion of this court:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the proportionate share of the taxes paid by the firm, in which the assessee, was a partner under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, should be excluded from the wealth of the assessee on the relevant valuation date?'

2. Sheo Kumar Gupta, the assessee, was a co-partner in the firm of Radhey Lal Munni Lal, Kanpur, with Ram Krishna Gupta and others. The partnership of Messrs. Radhey Lal Munni Lal in which the assessee was a partner made a voluntary disclosure under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, declaring concealed income of Rs. 10,00,000. The assessee's share in the concealed income amounted to Rs. 87,500. The assessee paid a tax at the rate of 57 per cent. of the income disclosed which came to Rs. 49,870. It was urged on behalf of the assessee before the Wealth-tax Officer that the tax of Rs. 49,870 was a 'debt owed' under Section 2(m) of the Act and should be allowed as a deduction in arriving at the net wealth of the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the claim against which the assessee filed an appeal which was accepted and the Wealth-tax Officer was directed to allow the said sum as a deduction in arriving at the net wealth of the assessee. The department filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal, The question of law referred on the facts of the case is squarely covered by a decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. B. K. Sharma : [1977]110ITR902(All) . Counsel for the department has not been able to persuade us that the view taken by the Division Bench needs reconsideration. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the decision in B. K. Sharma's case : [1977]110ITR902(All) , we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As nobody appeared for the assessee there shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //