ANNAMMA PAUL PERINCHERRY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are references under S.27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessment orders are 1960 61, 1961 62 and 1962 63. The assessee in all these years is the same individual, and the question which is a common one for all the three years referred to us is in these terms:

(2.) During the assessment to Income Tax of the same assessee for the years 1957 58,1958 59 and 1959 60, additions have been made to the disclosed income on the basis that the assessee had been carrying on the other business benami for the assessee in the name of Raman and Company. Large amounts were therefore added to the income by the assessing authorities and it is on the basis that this income was available with the assessee as an asset on the respective valuation dates which are 31-3-1960, 31-3-1961 and 31-3 1962 for the three assessment years, that additions were made by the Wealth Tax Officer of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in the first of these years and a sum of Rs.90,000/- for each of the subsequent years. The assessee appealed and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner felt that since the assessments to Income Tax had been finalised only after the Wealth Tax assessment was over, the extent of additions were not justified and be reduced the additions to Rs. 75,000/- each for the three years. The assessee went up in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income tax, Madras reported in 1964 (51) ITR 757 and a decision of this Court in Income Tax Referred Case No. 24 of 1966. After referring to these decisions, the Tribunal in its order observed as follows:

(3.) The charge under the Wealth Tax is on the net wealth of an assessee and 'net wealth" has been defined in S.2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in the following terms:--