Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Smt. Kamal Saroj

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present case and emanating from the record are that the assessee was a partner in the firm M/s. Mahajan Overseas, which had made certain claims of cash incentive to the Central Government in the matter of Export Promotion Council. The Wealth-tax Officer included the amount equal to the assessee''s share as her net wealth. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ordered the exclusion of the aforesaid amount, vide order dated September 23, 1986 (annexure C). Aggrieved by the order (annexure C), the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed, vide order dated August 21, 1987 (annexure D). The application of the Revenue for referring the matter to this Court was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated January 19, 1988 (annexure A).

The Revenue did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (annexure A) and filed the instant case, which was admitted to consider the following question of law:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee''s share in cash incentive amounting to Rs. 32,875 due to the firm M/s. Mahajan Overseas, Panipat from Central Government Handloom Export Promotion Council was not liable to wealth-tax ?

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their valuable help.

The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the share of the assessee in cash incentive/duty draw back due to the firm was includible in her net wealth or not ?

Having gone through the record and the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act (for short "the Act"), we are of the considered view that the amount in question of the share of the assessee in cash incentive and duty draw back did not represent any assets. The indicated amount of incentive is a personal reward for promotion of export of handloom goods given by the Handloom Export Promotion Council. Such reward remittance do not fall within the purview of movable or immovable property and cannot possibly be termed as "assets" as defined u/s 2(e) of the Act, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, the entire wealth-tax liability in this case is very meagre.

Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The instant reference is disposed of accordingly.