AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated a case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the agricultural land in village Kotia Tehsil Bindki, District Fatehpur, belonged to the undivided family of the assessee and not to the assessee in his individual capacity ?"
We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, senior advocate for the assessee-respondent.
The assessee is an individual and an assessment on him under the Wealth-tax Act was made for the assessment year 1971-72 as an individual. The total wealth was determined at Rs. 1,91,680. In that year net wealth up to Rs. 1,50,000 was not taxable. The net wealth of the assessee included agricultural land valued at Rs. 1,95,000, which according to the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual but was the property of his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his two sons and wife. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the agricultural land was the property of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. He also held that the investment in money-lending business (Rs. 70,000) cash and ornaments (Rs. 68,680) which were included in the net wealth of the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual and belonged to the Hindu undivided family. By the exclusion of the aforesaid assets, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit and, therefore, the learned Commissioner quashed the assessment. This has been upheld by the Tribunal.
The Revenue has not challenged the Tribunal''s finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash and ornaments. Since these items stand excluded from the net wealth of the assessee, the inclusion of agri- cultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth after exemption u/s 5 of the Act, would be below the taxable limit.
Therefore, in view of the other findings of the Tribunal, the question that has been referred for the opinion of this court is merely of academic interest. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. The reference is returned unanswered.