COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. RADHA PARTHASARATHY SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :

(2.) THE point for consideration in this case is, having regard to sub-clause (f) of clause (ii) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, in arriving at the break-up value of the shares, whether the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and accordingly should be allowed as deduction. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in CWT v. S. Ram [1984] 147 ITR 278 wherein this court held that payment of gratuity from the point of view of the liability to a workman may be a contingent liability but when on a scientific and actuarial basis, an employer makes a provision for gratuity, such a provision must be regarded as present, direct and minimum liability of the company for the reason that it represents the present discounted value of the employer's commitment as a whole to pay the workmen gratuity as and when it becomes liable. Consequently, the provisions of Explanation II (ii)(f) to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, will not apply and for determining the value of unquoted shares for purposes of wealth-tax, gift-tax and estate duty, their value will have to be ascertained under the break-up value method after deducting the provision for gratuity based on actuarial valuation from the value of the assets of the company.