COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. T MEENAKSHI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference' under the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee, a female, transferred on November 21, 1956, 7,000 ordinary shares in a certain company to her minor son, which were of the total face value of Rs. 1,05,000. THIS amount was not included in her wealth-tax return for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. Her contention that she was not caught by Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act was overruled by the department, but accepted by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the reference comes before us of the question :

(2.) SECTION 3 of the Wealth-tax Act charges for every financial year a tax inrespect of the net wealth of every individual. The term "individual" has not been defined, but, obviously, without anything more, it should indicate a male or female, in accordance with the context. "Net wealth" means, for purposes of the Act, the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of all the assets belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under the Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date, other than certain specified items. SECTION 4 directs that, in computing the net wealth of an individual, the value of certain assets should be included as belonging to him. Sub-section (1) of this section is in two parts, the first covered by Sub-clause (a), which sets out four classes of assets to be included, and the other covered by Sub-clause (b), which sets out as includible the value of a partner's interest in a firm or association, in the prescribed manner. The question referred to us entirely turns on a construction of the clauses.