Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) These appeals from the judgment of the High Court of Patna have come to this Court by certificates granted under Section 29 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The questions upon which the certificates of fitness of appeal to this Court have been granted are questions Nos. (2). (3) and (4) in Tax Cases Nos. 64 to 68 of 1967. The questions are as follows:"Question No. 2.-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decrees obtained by the assessee against Shri A. H. Lal and Shri D. D. Tulsi for Rs. 1,11,747 and Rs. 51,525 respectively, have been valued under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, by correctly applying the provisions of Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of including their values in the net wealth of the assessee Question No. 3.- Whether the sum of Rs. 32,266, the amount of agricultural income-tax due from the assessee, falls for deduction in hands of the assessee in arriving at his total wealth for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 Question No. 3.- Whether the sums of Rs. 5,97,909 due from Tikait Girja Prasad Sinah. Rs. 40,001 due from Sri Ganaeshwar Prasad Singh, Rs. 64,000 due from Mahanth Mahabir Das, Rupees 39,773 due from Sri Lakshmi Narain Singh, Rs. 2600 due from Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Rs. 1250 due from Sri Sariua Kumar, Rs. 15,344 due from Sri Nandkishore Singh, and Rs. 3,88,760 due from Raia Prithvichand Lal Chaughury under claim decrees obtained against them by the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act are assets of the assessee within the meaning of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and have been valued under the said Act by correctly applying the provisions of Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of including their values in the net wealth of the assessee -
(2.) Regarding Question No. 3 which is the question whether, the amount of agricultural income-tax dues from the assesses is a factor which has to be taken into account for valuing the compensation payable to the assessee. We have held that agricultural income-tax dues from the assesses which are deductible from the compensation under Sec. 4 (c) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, if the same has not been deducted before the issue of the compensation bond, then the possibility and the hazard of its being deducted from the compensation involved is a factor which has to be taken into account in estimating the value of the right of compensation for the purpose of estimating the net wealth of the assessee on the valuation date under the Wealth Tax Act. The arrears of agricultural income-tax is not to be deducted from the net wealth as such but is a factor which willing purchaser will take into consideration in estimating the value of these assets and that is a factor which should be taken into consideration. The point has been discussed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar. Patna v. Kumar Kamal Singh (Civil Appeals Nos. 1238 to 1240 (NT) of 1973) is, Therefore, answered as the answer given in the said appeals and the Tribunal will estimate the value by taking into consideration the possibility for deduction on account of the liability of the assessee on account of agricultural income-tax if it had not been already deduced in accordance with the provisions of the Act and determine the net value of the assets of the assesses, accordingly.
(3.) These questions are for the wealth tax assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessments involved were for those years in which the relevant valuation dates were 20th September, 1956, 21st March 1958, 21st March, 1959, 21st March, 1960 and 20th March, 1961 respectively. In the first year the assessee had filed return of wealth for Rs. 4,47,065-00. The Wealth Tax Officer, however, determined the total wealth of the assesses at Rupees 16,08,863-00. The Wealth Tax Officer included in the net wealth of the assessee, various amounts of money due under decrees which the, assessee had obtained against certain debtors as well as the compensation payable to him under the Bihar Land Reforms Act after valuing the bonds. It may be mentioned that the assessee had appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter he had carried appeals to the Tribunal also and had obtained some relief in the process. For the subsequent assessment years of 1958-59, 19,59-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62; similar considerations had come up before the Wealth Tax Officer, on the assessee filing separate returns and similar results were followed. In each year the assassee had claimed certain deductions, including an amount of Rs. 32,266 due as agricultural income-tax. The latter sum has been consistently disallowed. This point we have disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1238 to 1240 (NT) of 1973.;