COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX ORISSA, BHUBANESHWAR. versus VYSYARAJU BADREENARAYANA MOORTHY RAJU, BERHAMPUR (GANJAM). on 13 March 1985

.c

D

F

G

·COMMISStON!lR OF WEALTH-TAX ORISSA, BHUBANESHW AR.

v.

.

VYSYARAJU BADREENARAYANA . BERHAMPUR (GANJAM). MOOR THY RAJU

March 13, 1985

(R;S. PATHAK, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]

Wealth Tax Act 1957, Sections 2(e), 2(m}, 2(q} and 7(2).

'Net Wealth' -'Valuation date' -What are -Accrued interest -Whether .an asset -Distinction between cash and mercantile system of accounting -Whether releva·n1 for wea Ith tax.

The respondentMassessee was assessed to wealth tax for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, in the status of a Hindu Undivided ~Family'. In each of the assessment years, the Wealth :'ax Officer included a .sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs estimated as the accrued interest on the assessee's money lending jnvestrµents.

The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, con· tending that as the books of account were maintained in accordance with the ·cash system of accounting, the accrued interest on the money-lendini invest-ment could not be included in the Wealth-Tax assessments, the Appellate :Assistant Commissioner following the decision of the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Bihar and Orissa v. Vysyaraju Badteenarayana Moorthy Raju (Orissa) {1971)79 ITR 330 deleted the additions representing accrued interest.

The Wealth Tax Officer, appealed to the_ Appellate Tribunal and con-tended that the accrued interest was liable to be included in the Wealth Tax assessment of the assessee, relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vedrevu Venkappa Rao v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax A.P, (1968) 69 ITR 552. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, as it was bound by the decision of the Orissa High Court. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax applied under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for a referenco to the Supreme Court in view of the conflict of opinions between the Orissa High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the question : "Whether the Wealth Tax Officer was justified in including in the net wealth of the ~sessee, interest due on accrual basis (though not realised) on the outstandings +

6. w. t v. v.id.t. RAJU

ot the as~essee's money-lending busine,s, · the ·accounts being. maintained· on cash," was referred to this ~ourt.

A /

HELD : 1. Even though the accounts of the asse~sec .are maintained on cash basis irtterest due on accrual basis, though not realised, on the out-standings of the money, lending business is liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. [JIOG)

2. The value of a property re~ers to the Value of the rights in ihat property. What accrues as a right also falls t.o be included within the assets of an assessee under the Wealth Tax Act 1957. [310F]

B

2.1. The system of accounting, mercantile or cash or hybrid, is ·of no relevance for the purpose of determining . the assets of the assessee. ~ ·rhat appears plainly from the definltion of "net wealth" which speaks of "the aggre gate value ......... of all the assets" belonging to the assessee on the valuation date. All the assets of the assessee, bar those expressly excepted by the- statute, are to be taken_ into account, and it is immaterial whether the assessee employs one system of accounting or another. .[3IOC·D)

3. The assets are not confined to cash. Where the asset is an asset other than cash, its value is determined pursuant to sub-section (1) of se"ctioil.' 7 as the estimated price, which, in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer, the asset would fetch if sold in the open market on- the valuation date. It would· be the estimated open market value of the rights in the property which consti-tute the asset. [3 IOE-F]

Vedrevu Venkappa Rao v. Commissioner'of Wealth-tax A.P. (1968) 69 _ ITR 552; CommiSsioner of Wealth-Tax. A.P-I. v. Pachigolla NarasimhQ Rao r• {1982) :134 ITR 646 and Dipta -Kumar. Basu v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax'. West Bengal, (1976) 450 JTR 450, approved.

E

Issues

-Commissioner of Wealth-tax Bihar and Orissa v. Vysyaraju Badreenara-yana Moorthy Raju (Orissa). (1971-) 79 JTR 330 and A.T. Mlrjf v. sioner of Wealth-Tax, Karnatka, (1980) 126 ITR 93, over-ruled. . _ . . .

Commis-'.-11 . _ F J .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Tax Reference Cas~s 'Nos. 3

to 5 of 1975

A

B

D

E

l19ssj 3 s.c.ti

sb~aliMh etlbat REPORtS

PATHAK, J, : These references under s.27(!) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957 have been made by the Income Tax Appellate 1ribunal, Cuttack Bench at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Orissa for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Wealth Tax Officer was in law justified in including in the net wealth of the assessee interest due on accrual basis (though not realised) on the outstandings of the money-lending business, the accounts of the assessee being maintai-ned on cash basis ?".

The respondent assessee was assessed to wealth tax for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966·67 and 1967-68 (the respective valua-. tion dates being March 31, 1965, March 31, 1966 and March 31, 1967), in the status of a 'Hindu Undivided Family. In each of the assessments, the Wealth Tax Officer included a sum !of Rs. 1,50,000 estimated as the accrued interest on the assessee's money-lending investments. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Com-missioner and urged that as it maintained its books of account in accordance with the cash system of accounting the accrued interest on the money-lending investments could pot be included in the wealth-tax assessments. The contention found favour with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and accordingly he deleted the additions of Rs. 1,50,000 representing accrued interest. In doing · so the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed "Commissioner Of Wealth-tax Bihar and Orissa v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (Orissa)(I).

The Wealth Tax Officer appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and contended that accrued interest was liable to be included in the wealth-tax assessments of the asscssee. The Wealth Tax Officer sought support from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in · Vedreva Venkappa Rao v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax([2]) A.P. The App.ellate Tribunal observed that the judgment of the Orissa High Court was binding on it, and accordingly by a consolidated order dated April 3, 1972, it dismissed the appeals. The Commissio-ner of Wealth Tax applied under sub-s. (1) of s. 27 of the Wealth '

.

-.. ~

e.w.+. v. v.11. M Wu (Puthak, J.)

----------------'----------·-----··-

sut1RiiMB cotJRf Riii!oR rs

t19ssi 3 s.c.it

The computation of the net wealth of an assessee calls for a determination of his assets and debts as on the valuation date. The definition embodied in the substantive part of cl. (q) of s.2 indicates that broadly Parliament has fixed upon the last day of the ' "previous year", as defined under the Income Tax Act, as the valuation date. The figure of net wealth of the assessee at the end of the "previous year" takes into account the financial activities of the assessee during that "previous year". His financial activities during that period determine how his net wealth on a particular . valuation date differs from his net wealth on the immediately preceding valuation date. There is an obvious advantage in adopt-ing as the valuation date the last day of a period which is also the relevant period under the Income Tax Act. The reasons for defining the valuation date in terms of the last day of the income tax "pre-vious year" stop there. The system of accounting, mercantile or cash or hybrid, is of no relevance for the purpose of determining the assets of the assessee. That. appears plainly from the definition or "net wealth" which speaks of"the aggregate value ..................... of all the assets" belonging to the assessee on the valuation date. All the assets of the assessee, bar those expresely excepted by the statute, are to be taken into acc'ount, and it is immaterial whether the assessee employs one system of accounting or another. There is clear indication that the assets to be considered are not circum-scribed by any consideration of the particular system of accounting adopted by the assessee. The assets are not confined to cash. Where the asset is an asset other than cash, its value is determined pursuant to sub-s. (I) of s.7 as the estimated price, which, in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer,· the asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. In other words, it would be the estimated open market value of the rights in the property which constitute the asset. When we speak of the value of a pro-perty, on a legal plane we refer to the value of the rights in that property. It is apparent that what accrues as a right also falls to be included within the assets of an assessee under the Wealth Tax Act. That being so, the conclusion is inescapoble that even though the accounts of the assessee are maintained on cash basis interest due on accrual basis, though not realised, on the outstandings of the money lending business are liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee.

In this view of the matter, we approve of the opinion expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in. Vedrevu Venkappa Rao (supra)

•

and in Commissioner of Wealth' Tax, A.P.-I v. Pachigolla Narasimha Rao(l) and the Calcutta High Court in Dlpti Kumar Basu v. Com-missioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal(') and hold that the view taken by the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Wealth tax v. Vysyilraju Badreenarayana Moorrhy Raju (Orissa) (supra) and by the Karnataka High Court in'A. T. Mirji v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Karnataka(') cannot be accepted.

In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There is no order -as to costs.

N.V.K.

Appeal allowed

______ ..,...... ____ ---:-:-::--:--;i

(-1) (1982) 134 I.T.R. 640 • . (2) (1976) !OS I.T.R. 4SO, m (1980) i~~ l,T,R. 93, A

B

c