BABU NAIDU C K Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from a common judgment of Issac J. dismissing O. P. Nos. 1511 and 1512 and 1969 [C. K. Babu Naidu v. Wealth -tax Officer : [1971]82ITR410(Ker) ]. The two petitioners contended that in ascertaining the taxable wealth of the petitioners the entirety of the income declared by the petitioners for the purpose of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is not liable to be taxed. According to them, the income -tax due on the income declared according to the provisions in section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, must be deducted from the income declared and the net wealth arrived at. The contention is based on the definition of 'net wealth' in section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, which is in these terms :

(2.) VALUATION date is defined thus :

(3.) AS provided by section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, the two petitioners declared their income and distributed them in a certain manner for the years concerned. This distribution has been accepted by the assessing authorities and it is admitted that tax has been levied on the basis of such distribution. It is unnecessary to refer to the figures as it is sufficient to state, as we have already stated, that the contention was that out of the income attributable to each of the assessment years, the tax leviable under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, must be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the net wealth assessable to wealth -tax. the assessees, the appellants, had already been assessed to wealth -tax before the declaration under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was made by them excepting for the year 1965 -66 in Writ Appeal No. 280 of 1971. Consequent on the declaration under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, and the assessment to income -tax steps were taken under section 17 of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, to reopen the wealth -tax assessments and what has been done is to add to the net wealth of the assessees for each of the years what we have mentioned, the entirety of the income declared for that year under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. Counsel for the assessee has repeated the argument that was advanced by him before the learned single judge that the procedure adopted is not justified by the principles that are applicable to the case.