The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Haryana, H.P. & Delhi. Vs. Nath Mal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 919 to 924 of 1975.
Petitioner: The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Haryana, H.P. & Delhi.
Respondent: Nath Mal
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 919 to 924 of 1975.
Judges: R.S.PATHAK, CJI., S. NATARAJAN & M.N.VENKATACHALIA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 1988
Head Note:
WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957:
Section 2(m) – Finance Act No.1 of 1965; Section 68 – AYs 1959- 60 to 1964-65 – Income-tax liabilities in respect of half-share of the assessee of the Income-tax paid by the firm on the amounts disclosed voluntarily is a debt under section 2(m).
Cases Reffered:
1. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 2 May, 1974 of
the High Court of Delhi answering the following question in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income – tax liabilities in respect of half -share of the assessee of the Income-tax paid by the firm on the amounts disclosed voluntarily under section 68 of the Finance Act No.1 of 1965, is a debt under section 2(m) of the W.T. Act, 1957 on the dates of valuation for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-55?”.
2. This question, in our opinion, stands concluded by the view taken by this Court in Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat and therefore, the appeals must be dismissed. We may observe that the judgment of the High Court under appeal was infact approved of by this Court in that case. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 2 May, 1974 of
the High Court of Delhi answering the following question in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income – tax liabilities in respect of half -share of the assessee of the Income-tax paid by the firm on the amounts disclosed voluntarily under section 68 of the Finance Act No.1 of 1965, is a debt under section 2(m) of the W.T. Act, 1957 on the dates of valuation for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-55?”.
2. This question, in our opinion, stands concluded by the view taken by this Court in Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat and therefore, the appeals must be dismissed. We may observe that the judgment of the High Court under appeal was infact approved of by this Court in that case. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
