T. Raghuraman Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/817122
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJan-28-1998
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 661 and 662 of 1983 (Reference Nos. 362 and 363 of 1983)
JudgeN.V. Balasubramanian and ;A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Reported in[2000]243ITR185(Mad)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1)
AppellantT. Raghuraman
RespondentCommissioner of Wealth-tax
Appellant AdvocateP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.V. Rajan, Adv.
Excerpt:
- n. v. balasubramanian, j.1. in the above two tax cases one is at the instance of the assessee and another is at the instance of the department.2. at the instance of the assessee, the tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, for our consideration :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in section 5(l)(viiia) of the act ?'3. at the instance of the department, the following question of law has been referred by the tribunal under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, for our consideration :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in computing the net wealth of a firm under rule 2 of the wealth-tax rules, assets exempt under section 5 should be excluded or whether such assets also should be included therein and then apportioned among the partners for granting exemption in their individual assessments after computing their own individual net wealth ?'4. so far as the question of law referred at the instance of the assessee isconcerned, it is fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question oflaw is covered against the assessee by the decisions of this court in m. rangaswamy v. cwt : [1996]221itr39(mad) and r. m. perianna pillai (deed.) v.cwt : [1996]221itr122(mad) , wherein this court held that the entire coffee andtea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and theberries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression 'growingcrops' for exemption under section 5(l)(viiia) of the wealth-tax act, 1957.following the decisions of this court in m. rangaswamy's case : [1996]221itr39(mad) as well as r. m. perianna pillai's case : [1996]221itr122(mad) , the question of law referred at the instance of the assessee is answered in the negative and against the assessee. 5. so far as the question of law referred at the instance of the department is concerned, we are of the view that the question of law referred to us does not reflect the real controversy between the parties and we reframe the question as under :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in holding that the deduction under section 5(l)(iva) of the wealth-tax act is to be allowed in the hands of the assessee who is a partner in the firm which owns agricultural lands ?'6. a similar question of law came up for consideration before this court in r. venkatavaradha reddiar v. cwt : [1995]214itr76(mad) , wherein this court held that the assesses, a partner, is entitled to the exemption by way of deduction under section 5(1)(iva) of the wealth-tax act in respect of his share in the agricultural lands held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, while computing the net wealth of the assessee. following the decision of this court in r. venkatavaradha reddiar v. cwt : [1995]214itr76(mad) , we answer the question of law as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the department.7. accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in both the tax cases in the manner indicated above. however, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

N. V. Balasubramanian, J.

1. In the above two tax cases one is at the instance of the assessee and another is at the instance of the Department.

2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our consideration :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in Section 5(l)(viiia) of the Act ?'

3. At the instance of the Department, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our consideration :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in computing the net wealth of a firm under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, assets exempt under Section 5 should be excluded or whether such assets also should be included therein and then apportioned among the partners for granting exemption in their individual assessments after computing their own individual net wealth ?'

4. So far as the question of law referred at the instance of the assessee isconcerned, it is fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question oflaw is covered against the assessee by the decisions of this court in M. Rangaswamy v. CWT : [1996]221ITR39(Mad) and R. M. Perianna Pillai (Deed.) v.CWT : [1996]221ITR122(Mad) , wherein this court held that the entire coffee andtea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and theberries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression 'growingcrops' for exemption under Section 5(l)(viiia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.Following the decisions of this court in M. Rangaswamy's case : [1996]221ITR39(Mad) as well as R. M. Perianna Pillai's case : [1996]221ITR122(Mad) , the question of law referred at the instance of the assessee is answered in the negative and against the assessee.

5. So far as the question of law referred at the instance of the Department is concerned, we are of the view that the question of law referred to us does not reflect the real controversy between the parties and we reframe the question as under :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the deduction under Section 5(l)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act is to be allowed in the hands of the assessee who is a partner in the firm which owns agricultural lands ?'

6. A similar question of law came up for consideration before this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT : [1995]214ITR76(Mad) , wherein this court held that the assesses, a partner, is entitled to the exemption by way of deduction under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of his share in the agricultural lands held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, while computing the net wealth of the assessee. Following the decision of this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT : [1995]214ITR76(Mad) , we answer the question of law as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the Department.

7. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in both the tax cases in the manner indicated above. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.