Holding

A partner’s interest in a firm, whether in his individual capacity or as Karta of a HUF, is an asset includable in net‑wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, and the Wealth‑Tax Officer may refer its valuation to Valuation Officers under s.16A; thus the reference and notices were valid.

Summary

The appellants were a partnership firm (Juggi Lal Kamlapat Bankers) and a partner who was also the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The HUF was assessed to wealth tax, and the assessment included the HUF's interest in the partnership firm. The Wealth‑Tax Officer, believing the book values of the firm’s buildings were far below market values, referred the valuation of those buildings to Valuation Officers under s.16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and the Valuation Officers issued inspection notices. The appellants challenged the reference and notices in a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined (1) whether a HUF’s interest in a partnership firm is part of its net‑wealth for wealth‑tax purposes, and (2) whether the Wealth‑Tax Officer could lawfully refer the valuation to Valuation Officers under s.16A. The Court held that a partner’s interest, whether in his individual capacity or as Karta of a HUF, is an asset includable in net‑wealth under the Act, and that the Wealth‑Tax Officer is empowered to refer valuation matters to Valuation Officers. Consequently, the reference and the notices were valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the interest of a Hindu Undivided Family, represented by its Karta, in a partnership firm is includable in the HUF's net‑wealth for wealth‑tax assessment under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
Whether the valuation of such interest must be carried out under Section 7(2)(a) and Rule 2A/2B, or whether the Wealth‑Tax Officer may refer the valuation to Valuation Officers under Section 16A.
Whether the reference made by the Wealth‑Tax Officer and the inspection notices issued by the Valuation Officers were legally valid.

Legislation cited

Gift Tax Act, 1958s. 5
Income Tax Act, 1961
Partnership Acts. 29
Wealth Tax Act, 1957s. 16A, s. 2(e), s. 2(m), s. 3, s. 38A(1)(b), s. 4(1), s. 7(2)(a)

Subjects

Wealth taxHindu Undivided FamilyPartnership interestValuationSection 7Section 16ANet wealthKarta

Judgment

•·
35 A

JUGGl LAL KAMLAPAT BANKERS & ANR .
• v.
WEALTH TAX OFFICER. SPECIAL CIRCLE C-WARD.
KANPUR & ORS. B
December 15. 1983
[V.D. TULZAP~RKAR,'V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI & D.P. MADON, JJ.J

Wealth Tax Act 1957. Sections 2 (e), 2(111), 3, 4(1), 7(2) (a~,/6A and 38A(l)

-- (h).

Wealth Tax R11fes 1957-Rule 2A & Rule 2B

.
JYealth Tax-Assess111e11t nf-lnterest of Karla of H.U.F. in a partnei·ship
.
C·

firn1-'-Whether to be i11c(11ded in the net wealth of H.V.F.

Wealth Tax Officer-Reference to Valilation Officers- Wh~n justifierl
D
U7ords & Phrases-Meaning of
'Havin!! regard to the halanc~-s!ieet (}(such hllfiiness'-s. 7(2)'ca), Wealth
Act 1957.

The asses'sec (Appellant No. 2) who was Karta of a Hindu Undivided
·Fa1nily was a partner of the fan1ily finn (Appellant -No. 1). and w:as bCing assessed
to wealth tax as a HUF. For the p·urposc. of evaluating the interest of the E
fan1i!y's _interest in the finn. the asscsscc ad0Ptcd the book value of buildings
owned by the firn1.

On the view that the n1arkct value of the buildings was n1uch n1ore than
their book value. the Wealth Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) Tefcrred, under
section \-GA on the We.alth Tax Act,_ 1957, to the Valuation Ofi'i~rs (KesPondent
Nos. 2 & 3) the question of valuatipn of those buildings. The Valuation F
Off'lcers issued notices under section 38A(I) (b) for inspection of buildings and
records relating to the1n, and the . asSessees objections to such procedure were
overruled.

The High Court dis1nisscd the asscssee's writ petition holding~

(I) having regard to 5ection 29 of the PartnCrship Act ·which enables a G
f'\artne; to -transfer his interest in the partnership finn a~d Section 2(e) and
Section 4(1) (b) of the Act the interest of a partner in the par nershiP fir1n will
have to be regarded as a part of his nqt wealth under the Act. (2) Section 3 the
charging pfovision expressly levied wealth tax on the net wealth of every Hindu
undivided· fan1ily, and consequCntlY the interest of a H.U.F. in a Partnership
firm, which is Properly, could be regarded as a part of its assets liahlc to be H
charged unde.r this Section. (3) R.ule 2, section 7 and section l6A (l) (i)_(li) had

·'
36 SUPREME corntr REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R.

A tp be. read hanhoniously and Rule 2 did ,;ot exclude the application of sections
7 and 16A for valuing an asset of a partner· in a partnership firm. (4) Section
7(2) was an enabling pr6vision giving a discretion to the Wealth-tax Officer
either to value the assets of a business as a whole or valuing each 3ssct thereof
separately and.in that' behalf he had the power to refer such ·valuation to ihe •
Valuation Officer under Section l6A. (5) A.ppellant N~. 2 as a .Partner could be
regarded as a·n agent of appellant no. J firn1 and the Valuation Officers could
issue notices requiring affording of' facilities for inspection of buildings and
Production of boOks, docuni.ents and reCords ..

In the Appeal to this Court it was contended that : (l) there was n.o provi-
sion for inclusion of a 'Kafta~s interest in a Partnership firn1 in the H.U.F.'s
.....
net-wealth f0r \vealth tax purPo.ses under th6 Act, and (2) even· assuming" that
api)e!lant No.2's interest (asn Karta of his H.U.F.) in the app~llant No.J's
c . firm is eligible to tax tinder the Act, the valuation of such interest would bC
governed by section 7(2) (a) of the Act rC;;id \Vith rule 2A of the \Vealth Tax
Rules 1957 alld it wos hot open to the Wealth Tax OfficCr to refer the valuation
to the valuation Officer under section 16A.

Dis;:111issing 1h~ Appeal,
HELD: l(i) Section 3 01 ·the Act read with the definitions of i'net-weal-
D th" as given in Section 2(1n) and "assets" given in section 2(e} clearly brings
out the cxigibility of a partner's interest in a firm either .jn his individual capa'-
. chy or his capacity as Karta of a II.. U.F. to wealth tax under the Act. [44 B-CJ.

(ii} There _is no. lacuna.in the Act as regards the making bf a Karb··s
interest {feprcsenting his H.U.F.) jn the· partnership 1irn1 exigiblc to wealth-
tax. J45 CJ"
E
(iii) Secti6n 4 (J) deals \vith the con1putation of the net-wealth of an
~individual. It enacts a deeming provision. Certc.in .assCts which do noJ in fact
or ih re1litY be1ong to the individual (the assessee) but sonie one else are to be
treated as belonging to that irtdividu~l and are to be indud('.d in his net
wealth. Analysis of Clauses (a) and (b) of•section 4(1) nlake it clear th8t there
· is a gre~t difference betw?en ~th~ casqs covered by clause (b). Clause (a) refers
F to five situations.in all of \vhich the .asSet is h6ld by soine one other than the
individual concer~ed (the assessee). It is provided that such asset held by that
, some One else shall be treated as belonging to the assessee. Clause (b) provid_es
that where tlie individllal assessee is. ·a partner In a firn1_ it is the valu.e of 'his
interest in the 1irn1.det~rn1ine1 in the prescribed n1anner that is to be treated
·as belonging to hin1·and is inclp.dible in his net-\vealth. (43 C-FJ
•
<rj.v) It cannot be said that the interest of the Partner in a 1irm does. not " \
G belong ·t9 him. The proper \Vay to interpret clause (b) would be ,,that the
deen1ing part of.it relates to th.e quantu_n1 of his ini:erest in the firin. detcnnined
in the prescribed n1anncr· which is to be treated as belonging to him and incluw
~ dible in his n.et-wealt~. [43 F·GJ

(v) A partner's interest in a firnl, either in his individual cap1c.ity o; in
.ff his capacity as a K1rta of a HUF, is· p~oP!rty and is otherwise e:<igible to
wealth tax under the other provisions of the Act. [43 lIJ ·

'·.
,
JUGGI L{\L V. WEALTH TAX OFFICER 37
2(i) Even where the Wealth-tax Officer has· resorted to section 7(2) for A
defei1ni!i.ing the value of tissets of a business as a whole the wntten down V<flues
or book values f(f specific asse.ts as appearing 1n the balance-sheet are not
s:icrosarici and when the market value exceeds the \vritteri down valU:e or book
• value bjmore.than·2oper cent,.thei\Vealth-tax Officer has_~o·adopt the n1arket
value of s~ch assets for the purposes of the Act. [49 C-D]
- .
(ii) In order to deterinine the valuatioi1 of a partner's interest in the firm,
· fir5t the net wealth of the finn has to be detern1ined under section 7 of the ·Act
B
and Rule 2 provides thafthe net wealth of the finn so determined shall be
alloc:ited amoDg the partners of the finn, Which allocated amount will be the
value ;f the 1nterest of each partner in the firn1. f46 F·GJ

. (iii) The prhnary method of detennining the value of the assets for the
!'
-·
plirposes of the Act is the On indicated in · s·ection 7(1), which provides that
1:.

vat"ue of ~ny assets, o~her that;cash, shall be estimated to be ·its market price c
oil the valuation date. Sub·section (2) provides that in the case of a business
for which accounts arc maifltainect· by the asscssee" regularly the Wealth·tax
Officer may instead of dctcrfn~ning separately the valuatioll of each a.sset held by
the assc"ssee 'n such business, detcrn1ine the net ,value of the business as a-whole
having regard ·10 the bal3.nce·sheet of such business as on the valuation date and
.1naking such adjustffient to therein as n1ay be Prescribed. [48 J?·F]
D
•(iv) Jt is optional for the Wealth.tax Officer to resort to either of the
methods even in the case where the net value of a· bus1ness carried on by the
assessee is to be detern1ined. Even v.:hen he proceeds' under sub·section ·(2) hC
has ·to determine the net value of the buSiness as a whole having regard to the
baiance·~heet of such business as· on the valuation date. (48 G·HJ

(v) The phras.c "hav.ng regard to tho balance·sheet of such business" as E
judicially interpreted n1eans that the Wealth· tax Officer. has to take into
cons!deration o; account the bulance-shcet of such business for &uch. valuation
and not that such balance·sheet is conclusive or binding or decisive· of the values
of assets appearing therein. l48 H; 49 AJ ·
(vi) Sub·rule (2) of Rule 2B clearly piov1des that where the market value
of an a·sset exceeds tts written down value or book value "by 1nore than· 20 per
cent, the value of tliat asset for the purposes of Rule 2A shall be taken to be.its F
market value. [49 B]
•
In the instant case,' the \Veal th-tax omcer was of the view that the book
values of specific house properties. as ·indicated in the returns filed by the
appellant No. 2 were far far· Pelow their 1narket values. He was therefore
justified in making a reference to th'e Valuation Officers under . section 16A and
the notices issued by the.Valuation O~cers were valid. (49 E] G
'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 816 of 1978.

From. the Judgment and Order dated the 4th October, 1977
·of the High Cburt of Judicature at Allal}abad in Writ Petition No. H
88 (Tax) of 1975.
.38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R'.

A 'v.s: Desai, Ravindra Narain, Harish Salve, Miso Rainu Walia '\..-
and P.-K. Ram, for the Appellants.
B.B. Ahuj~ for the Respondents:
•
The Judgment of the' Court was· delivered by
B
/
, I

TULZAPURKAR,. J. This appeal by certificate is directed against
the judgment and order dated 4th October, 1977 of_ the A\lahabad
High Court whereby the High Court upheld the reference.made by
tlie Wealth Tax Offic~r (Respondent No. I) to the Valuation Officers
(Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) for valuing cerfain buildings belonging .~-
c ·to the appellant No. 1 firni as well as the notices issued by the Valua- '
tio·n Officers to appellant No.2 in furtherance of the Reference. The •. ·
appellants had by means of a writ petition challenged the reference.
as well as the notices on certain grounds and had prayed for a manda-
, mus restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from valuing the buildings.
The writ' petition having been dismissed, the appellants have come up
D in appeal to .this Court. •

Most of the material facts giving rise to this appeal are not in
dispute and may briefly be stated as follows : Appellant No. 1 (M/s.
Juggi Lal Kamlapat, Bankers) is a partnership firm. Appellant
No. 2' (Padampat Singhania) was .one of the partners in the firm in
his capacity as a 'Karta' of a Hindu Undivided Family upto 15·3·
1972. He was being assessed to wealth tax in the status' of H.U.F.
·and the assets so assessed for wealth tax included the interest of the
family in appellant No. 1 firm. For the assessment years I 967· 68 .to
1972-73 wealth-tax returns were submitted by appellant No. 2 in the
status of H.U.F. and_ therein the family's i1:~erest in appellant No. J
F firm was included. Since appellant No. l firm owned a number of
buildings in Kanpur in the retur;1s so submitted the book-value of •
those buildings had been adopted by appellant No.2 for valuing the
interest of the family in appellant No. 1 firm. Respondent No. 1
felt that the market value of those buildings was much. m0re than
such book-value. He, therefore, referred the question of valuation.
G of those buildings to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (the concerned Valua·
tion Officers) under s.16A of the Wealth Tax Act 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 issued. notices
under s. 38A'(l) (b) of the Act to appellanfNo. 2 intimating that they
would inspect the buildings for determining the fair market value
H thereof and requested him to afford necessary facilities for such
inspection and to produce certain records connected with those build-

'
JUGGI LAL v. WEALTH.TAX OFFICER (Tulzapurkar, J.) 39
..
ings. On receiving the notices appellant N.o. 2 realised that respond- A
ent No.I had referred the question of valuation ·of the concerned
buildings to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under s. 16A of the Act and
that the notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 wer~ in furtherance
of such reference. On 9th of September, 1974 appellant No.2 add-
ressed a letter to respondent No. I contending that none of the pro-
perties referred to the Valuation Officers belonged to him and that B
the referehce to them was unauthorised and the same should be with-
drawn. He also addressed letters to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in
which he contended that reference made to them by respondent No.I
was inv1lid and requested each one of them to return the referern;e
back to the Wealth· Tax Officer. Since thesr c~ntentions were not
accepted by the respondents, the appellants filed a writ petition in c
the High Court challenging the reference made by respondent No. I
as well as the•notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

On behalf of the appellants the following contentions were ·
urged in support of the writ petition : (I) For the assessment of
appellant No. 2, respondent No. I could not refer to respondent' D
nos. 2 and 3 the valuation of building which did not belong to him
but belonged to appellant no. i'firm: (2) ·the interest ofa H.U.l'. in
a partnership firm was not exigibli: to wealth tax; (3) the interest of
appellant no.' 2 in appellant no. I firm had to be valued in accordance
with Rufo 2 of Wealth Tax Rules 1957 and hence s. 16A of the Act.
had no application ; (4) the valuation of the concerned buildings
forming part of the assets of the businass of appellant no. I firm had
to be determined in accordance with the commercial principles under
s.7 (2) (a) and not under s.9 (l) of the Act and (5) the resp011dcnts
nos. 2 and J cciuld not issue the no.tices to appellant No.2 "' he was
neither the owner of the buildings nor was in occup•tion thereof.
F
In regard to the first contention the Hi'gh Court took the view
that though it was true that a partner of a firm cottld.not claim owner:
ship in specific properties belonging to the partnership firm either
during the continuance of the partnersh~ or even on its dissolution
but was entitled to get a share in the pr~fits 'during its continuance
and was further entitled, upon its dissolution or bis retirement there- G
from, to the value of his share in the surplus of the partnership assets
left after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges on the date of
dissolution or retirement, it was clear that having regard to s. 29 "or
the Partnership Act (which enables 'a partner to transfer his interest in
the partnership firm) and s.2 (e) and 4 (I) (b) of the Act the interest H
of a partner in the partnership firm will have to he regarded as a part
•
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.11.

A of his net wealth under. the Act As regards the•second contention
which was elaborated to the .etfeci that even if. the inierest of an in- ·r-
dividual in a partnership firm could be regarded as an asset within
the meaning of s.2(e) of the Act, the interest of a H.U.F. in the part-
ne'rship firm could not be regarded as such asset and was not, there-
. fore, exigible to· wealth tax (for· whi<oh reliance was placed bn the
B . circumstances that under s.4 (!) (b) of the Act provision has been
made for' determining the value of an individual's interest .in a part-
nership firm but no corresponding provis.ion obtains in the Act
for inclusion ~f the interest of H.U.F. in a partnership firm for
purpbses. of assessment), the High Court took the view that from
the said circumstanlOJS relied upon it did. not follow that the interest ,.,
c of a H.U.F. in a partnership firm could not be regarded as • part
of net .wealth of such family or was not liable to wealth tax, espe-
cially when the chai;ging provision namely, s.3 of the Act .expressly
levi.ed wealth tax on the net ·wealth of every Hindu undivided family
and tl]ere was no reason why its interest in a partnership firm, which
was property, could not be regarded as a part of i.ts assets liable to the
D charge under the section. With regard to the third and fourth con-
tentions the High Court held that Rule 2, sec. 7 and sec. 16A (I)
(4) (ii) had to be read harmoniously and Rule. 2 did not exclude the
· . application of secs. 7 and, J6A for valuing an asset of a partner in a
partnership firm and that notwithstanding the non-obstante clauac
contained in sec. 7 {2) it was an enabling provision giving a discre-
tion to the Wealth Tax Officer either to value the assets of a busines8
Ma whole or valuing each asset thereof separately and in that behalf
the Wealth Tax Officer had the power to refer such valuation to the
Valuation Officer under sec. 16A. As regards the last contention the
High Court negatived the same by .observing that appellant No. 2
as a partner. could be regarded as an agent of appellant No. 1 firm
and the Valuation Officers could issue· Notices to him req·uiring hirn
· to afford facilities fot inspection of the concerned buildings and to
·. produce books, doc~ments and records relevant for the valuation of,
those buildings. In this view of the matter the High Court dismis8cd
the writ petition but its decision is challenged in this appeal.
• •
Counsel for the appellants raised substantially two cQntention•
in support or' the appeal. In the first place counsel has contended
that there is no provision for the inclusion of a Karta's interest. in
a partnership firm in the H.t,J.F.'s net-wealth for wealth tax purpose•
under the Act and this would be clear,from sec. 4 of the Act. Ela-
H borating this contention counsel has pointed out that sec. 4 (I) i•
applicable to the computation of the net-wealth of an indiTidaal an4
Jt"GGI I AL )', WFALJH TAX OFFICrn(_Tulzapurkar, J.) 4i
hat the said provision is a deeming provisicn whcreunder cc.rtain A
tassets though held in reality by some others are to be treated as be-

. . o nging to that individual and included in bis net \\calth fer purposes
of his wealth ta!' assessment and one such deeming provision is to be
found in cl. (b) thereof which provides that where the asse5'ee is a
partner in a firm the value of his intere-st in a firm. determined in the
prescribed manner shall be included iii computing tl1e r.et-wea1ti1 'of
such individual and what is urged is that there is no provisicn to
be found in ~he Act which provides for the inclusion of Karla's in-
terest·in a firm iµ the H.U.F.'s. net wealth,_ Cou'nsel strenuously
urged that but for the deeming provision which is to te found in cl.
(b) even the interest of partner (in Us irdivic'1 ;,J capacity) wculd
c
r
not have become includible in J1is r.et wealth. In cttfr wcrcis, accord-
ing to counsel, there is a lacuna in the Act as regards the inclusion
of a Karla's interest in the.partnership firm in his H ,u.F:·s: r.ct wealth
and, therefore, the Department's attempt to include the interest of.
appellant No.2 (as a I{arta) in appe;lant No.l's firm in the nct-weaJth
6f his H.U.F. is not warranted by any of the provisicrs of the Act.
Secondly, counsel has urged tllat assuming that appellant No.2's D
i~terest {as a Karta of his H.U.F.) in appellant No. l's firm is exi-
gible to the wealth-tax under the Act, the valuation of such intcresi
being go'verned by sec. 7 (2) (a) of the Act read with Rule 'fA. of th
Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 it is not open to the Wealth Tax Officer to
refer the valuation of specific house properties belongirg tc the firm
to the Valuation Officers under s. l6A of the Act; in fact, according E
to him, the valua.tion of the assets of the partnership business of
appellant No. l as a whole having regard to its balance-sheets for the
concerned years ought to have been undertaken by the Wealth Tax'
Officer and as such the book values of the house properties as appear-
ing in tho Balance Sheets ought to have .been accepted by him and,
therefore, the reference made by the Wealth Ta" Officer to Valuation F.
Officers as well as the notices issued by the latter being incompetent
and unjustified in law, are ilable to be quashed. For the reasons
which we shall presently indicate neither 9f the eontentioni has any
substance and both a.re liable to be rejected.
•
. In order to deal with the first contention mentioned above it G
will be necessary to set out the material provisions ..of s.4 of the Act.
•lauses (a) (b) of sub-s. (I). of ~ec. 4 run as followi :-

"Net wealth to inchuie certain assets :-
..
4. (1) In computing the net wealth of an individual, there 1il
shall 1>e included, ae belongina to tt.at iadiviaual- ·
•

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [1984) 2 S.C.R.
'
A (a) the value of assets which on the valuation date are
· held-- ' ·
0

(i) by the spouse of such individual to whom such
assets have been transferred by the.individual,
directly or indirectly, otherwise than for ade-
B quate considera.tion or in connection with an
agreement to live apart, or

(ii) by a minor child, not being a married
daughter, of such individual, to whom
such assets have .been transferred by the
indi~idual, directly or indirectly, otherwise
c · than for adequate consideration, or

(iii) by a person or association of persons to whom
such assets have been transferred by the indi-
•
vidual directly or indirectly otherwise than
D
for adequate consideration for the immediate
~r deferred benefit of the individual, his or
her spou·se· or minor child (not being a
married daughter) or both, or

(iv) by a person or association of persons to
whom such assets have been transferred by the
E
individual otherwise than under an irrevocable
transfer, or· ·

(v) by the son's wife, or the son's minor child,
of such individu~I, to whom such assets have
been transferred by the individual, directly
F
or indirectly, on or after the 1st day of ·June,
1973, otherwise than for adequate considera-
tion,

whether the assets referred to in any of the sub-clauses
aforesaid· are held in the form in which they were trans-
G
ferred or otherwise :

.Provided that where the transfer of such assets or any
part thereof is either chargeable to. gift tax under
H the Gift-tax Act, J958 (18 of 1958), oris not chargeable
under ;ection 5 of that Act, for any assessment
JUGGI LAL v. WEALTH TAX OFFICER (Tulzapurkar, J.) 43

year commencing after the 31st day of March,_ 1964 A
but before the Ist day of April, 1972, the value of such
assets or part thereof, as the case may be, shall not be
included in computing the net wealth of the individual;

(b) where the assessee is a partner in a firm or a
member of an association of persons not being B
a co-operative housing so~iety, the value of his in-
terest in the firm or a~sociation determined in the
prescribed manner". ·

. It is true that sec. 4 (!) deals with the co~putation of the net•
wealth of an individual'and it is also true that same enacts n deeming C
• provision in the sense that certain assets which.do not in fact or in
reality belong to that individu~l (the assessee) but . to some
one else are to be treated as belonging to that individual and are to
be included in his net wealth. But, in our view, a cart:ful reading and
analysis of els. (a) and (b) thereof will make it clear that there is a
great difference betwe-en the cases covered by sub-els. (i) to (v) of .D
cl. (a) and the case covered by cl. (b) .. Cl. (a) refers to five situations
in all of which the asset is held by some one other than the individual
concerned (the assessee) (e.g. held by the spouse or minor child of such
iudividual to ')'horn such asset.has been transferred by such individual

,,
directly or indirectly otherwise than for adequate co.nsideration, etc.)
"3ud it is provided that such asset held by that some one else shall E
be treated as belonging to the assessee-a dee1iling provision in the real
sense of creating a legal fiction, while under cl. (b) it is provided that
where the individual assessee is a partner in a firm it is the value of
his interest in the firm determined in the prescriped manner that is
to be treated as belonging to him and is includible in his net-wealth.·
In other words cl..(bj is not a deeming provision in the sense in which ' F
a deeming provision is made in cl. (a). It cannot be said that the in- ·
terest of a partner in a firm does not belong to him; it in fact belongs
to him and no legal fiction is required for treating it as belonging to
him; and the-proper way to interpret cl. (b) would be that the deeming
part of it relates to the quantum of his interest in the firm determined
in the prescr\bed manner which is to be treated as_ belonging to G
him and includible in his net wealth. It i's impossible to accept the
c01itention that but for cJ.. (b) of s.4 (!) the interest of a partner
(where he happens to be an individual assessee) in a firm would not
have been exigiblc to wealth tax under tbe Act. As we shall pre-
sently point out a partner's interest in a firm either in hi~ individual H
capacity or in his capacity as a Karta of H.U.F is otherwise exigible
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 S.c.R-.
•
A to wealth tax under the other provisions of the Act and the deeming
provision contained in s.4 {I) (b) properly understood must be held to
· be referable to the quantification of his interest in the.firm determined
in the prescribed manner
~ . that is made includible in his net-wealth.

Section 3 of the Act read with the definitions of "net-wealth"
B as given in sec. 2 (m) and '"assets" given in sec. 2 (e) clearly brings out ·
'he exigibility of a partnel"'s interest in a firm either in his individual
'apacity or his capacity as a Karta of ·a H.U.F. to wealth t~x under
•he Act. Section 3 which is a ·charging provision ru!ls thus

"Charge of wealth-tax.
c
3.. Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act,
·there shall be charged for every assessment year commencing
on and from the first day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter re- .,..,,
ferred to 'as wealth-tax) in respect of the net wealth on the
'. corresponding· valuation date of every individual, Hindu un-
D divided family and company at the ra.te or rates specified in
Schedule I." ·

Section 2 (m) defines "ne.t-wealth" thus :

"net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate.value
E computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of •
all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on
the valuation d~te. i~cluding assets required to be included in
his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of
the aggregate value of all the.debts owed by the assessee on ·

F'
•
the valuation d'!:te other than--
. .
• (here follow three types of debts which are not to be
reckoned with wh'ich we are not concerned)."
Section 2 (e) defines "assets" thus :
... "a'ssets" includes property of every description, movable
\

G ·or immovable, · bu\ does not include---
(here follow certain specified properties with which we
' are not concefned.)". • •

H On .reading the aforesaid provisions together it will appear
altar ·that wealth-tax has been levied on the net-wealth of an individual
• JUGGI LAL )'. WEALTH TAX OFFICER (Tulzapurkar, J.) • 45
•
or a tt:u.F. meaning thereby the aggregate. value of all the assets A
belonging to such assessee minus all the debts owed by him. Under
the definition of 'assets" property of every description; movab!C or
immovable is included, and since ifcatinO.t be disputed and was not
disputed before us that a partner's inerest in a firm eitqer in his in-
dividual capacity or in his capacity as a Karta ef a H.U.F. is property.
the same would be includible in the .expressfon "assets" w.hich will B
have to be taken into accout while computing the net-.wealth of such
individual or H.U.F. and on such net.wealth the charge of wealth tax
. has been imposed under sec. 3. It is thus clear that there is no lacuna
in the Act as regards the making of a Karla's interest (repre<enting I
his .H.U.F.) in the partnership firm exigiblc to wealth-tax. The "
first contention, therefore, must fail. C:
The second contention of counsel for the appellant has been
that even if it be held that appellant No. 2's interest (as a Karta of hio
'H. U.F.) in the appellant No . l"s firm is exigfble to the tax under the
Act the valuation of.such interest would be governed by l!CC. 7- (2)
(a) of the Act read with Rule 2A of the Wealth Tax Rules 1957 and
D
since it is a case of valuing such interest in the partnership business of
appellant No. 1 firm. the Wealth Tax Officer while first valuing the
assets of. the business should have, having regard to the ba.lance-
. sheets of the said business us on the valuaticn dates, accepted the book
.values of the specific house properties as appearing i~ the balance-
sheets and could not refer the valuation thereofto the Valuation .
Officers under sec. J6A of the Act which being i.napplicable could 1wt
be resorted to; in this_ connection reference was also made by counsel
to sub-s (2) of sec, 4 whereunder it is provided that in making any
rules with reference to' the valuation of the interest ref~rred to in cl.
(b) of'sub-s. (1) (being a partner's interest in a firm) the Board shall
have regard to the lawrcrr the time being in force relating to the manner F
~-
in which accounts are to be settled between partners of a firm on the
dissohtion of a firm. The substance of the argument, in brief, has
• . been that sec. 7 (I) which enables the W~alth-tax Officer to determine
the value of any asset, other than' cash, at the market prite thereof on
the valuation date for the purposes of the Net is imapplicable to the
·instant case and, therefore, sec. 16A is not attracted and hence the G.
valuation °reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the Valuation
Officers regarding specific house properties is liable to be set aside.
As we shall demonstrate presently, the contention proceeds on an
entire misconception of .the relevant provisions of the 'Act and the
Rules. · H
·We have already indicated above that a p.artner's interest in a

,·
46 ' SUl'Rll~IE COURT REPORTS
•
[1984] 2 S.C.R. •
A .firm, either in his individual capacity or as a Karla of a H.U.F., is
property ot asset liable to-be included ii1 the net wealth of the concerned.
assessee and is exigible to wc;alth-tax under the Act. Once that posi-
tion is accepted it is clear that such asset will have to be valued for
the piirpos~s of the Act and in this behalf Rule 2 (I) of the Wealth- '.
tax Rules, 1957 prescribes the manner of valuing such interest. It
B runs thus : •

"Valuation of interest in partnership or association. of
persons.
.t-·
2. (I) The value of the interest of a person in a firm
• ofwhieh he is a partner or in an association of persons of
c which he is a member, shall be .determined in the manner
provided herein'. The net wealth. of the firm or the associa-
tion on the valuation date shall first . be determined. That
portion of the net wealth of the. firm or association as is
equal to the amount of its capital shall be allocated among
the partners or members in the proportion in \vhich capital
D has been contributed by them. The residue of the net
wealth of the firm or association shall be· "\located among
the partners.or members in accordance with the agreement
of partnership or association for the distribution of the
assets in the. event of dissollition of the finn or association,
or, in the absence of such agreement, in the proportion in
E

.{.
which the. partner; or members are entitled to share profits.
The sum total of the anwunts so allocated to a partner or
member shall be treated as the value of the interest of that
p1rtner or 1nen1bcr, in the finn. or association." .
' '
Th,~ aforesaid rule clearly sii.ys thaf' in order to _determi_ne
F valuation of a partner's interest in the firm', first the net wealth of
the firm has to be determined, which determination, of course, is
·governed by sec. 7 of the Act and the rule goes on to provide as to •
how the net wealth of the firm so determined shall be allocated among
the part;1ers of the firm, which allocated amount will be regarded
as the v~lue of the interest of each partner in the tirm. Coming to \ '
G. _the· precise contention raised by counsel, the 1na.terial provisions of
the Act and the Rulis having a bearing thereon would be sec. 7 (!),
7 (2) (a), •7 (3) and Rules 2A and 2B and these ar'.' as under

"Value. of assests, how to be determined.
H
7. (1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, the value -
,JUGGI LAL v. _WEALTH TAX OFFlqR (Tulzapurkar, J.) 47

of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act, • A
• shall be estimated to the price which in the opinion of the
Wealth tax Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market
on the valuation date .
•
(Explanation . ......... , : ........................ )

(2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section
(I),- -
(a) where the assessee is carrying on a business for
'· which accounts are maintained by. him regularly,
the Wealth tax Officer may, instead of determining
..... separately the. value of each asset held by the assessee c
in such business, determine the net value of the assets
of the business as a whole having regard to the
balance sheet of such business as on the valuation
date and making such adjustments therein as may
be prescribed.
D
(3) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub section
(I), where the valuatio.n of any asset is referred by the Wealth
tax Officer to the Valuation Officer under section J6A, the
value of such asset shall be estimated to be the price which,
in the opinion of the Valuation Officer, it would fetch.if sold
in the open market on the valuation· date, or, in '110 ca:se of an E
asset being a house referred to in sun section (4). the valuation
date 'referred to in· that sub section."

Rules 2A and 2B run thus :

"Dete.rminat;on of the net value of assets of busit,~ss as a F
1vhole .
• 2A. Where the Wealth tax Officer determines under •
clause (a) of"sub section (2) of section 7 the net value of the
assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance.
sheet of such busii\ess, he shall make the adjustments specitied
in rules 2B, 2C, 29, 2E, 2F and ·2G::
G

"Adjustfflents ;n the value of an asse{disclo.ve,1 in the balance
sheet.
2B. (!) The va~ue of an asset disclosed :n the Balance H;
sheet shall be taken to be-~
A
SlJPREMe COURT REPORTS

(o) in the c3'e of an asset on which·· depreciation is
•
-
admissible, its written dow'n \.1lue;
•
(b) in the nse of an. asset o·n which no depreai1tiea
•
..
is admissible, its book valuo ;

CJ .in ti" c1so of closing stock, its value ado'pteu for the
purpJses of assessment under the lncpme tax Act,
AC!, 1961, for the previous year relevant to tltt
correspJnding assessment year.
•

(2) N )'. Vithlt11li11g a.iy thing coµ.tained in sub:·rulc
( i) w'1ere the mirkct value ofan asset exceeds its written down 'j
v•lue or its book value or the value adopted f)r purposes
of assessm~nt under ihe .Income tax Act, 1961, asthe case may
be, by m Jre than 20 pe.r cent, the value of that asset shall',
for the purp?;es of rule 2A, be talcen to be its market valuo." .

D 0.1 a fair re~ding of the aforesaid provisions it will appear
clear that the primary method of determining the value of assets for
the purposes of the Act is the one indicated in sec. 1· (l), inasmuclo
as it provides that the value of any assets, other than cash, for , tho
purposes 0f this Act shall be estimated to be its mark1't price on the
valuation· date. Then comes sub-sec. (2) which pro~ides that . in
the cas·e'Of a business for which accounts are maintained by the assossee.
regularly.the Wealth tax Officer may instead of determining •eparately
the valuation of each asset held by the assessee in such buS'inesi, de-
termine the net v,1iue of the business as a whole having regard to tbe _:.(/
balance sheet of such business as on the valuation date and makin& ' .....
'such adjustmei1ts t:ierein as.may be prescribed. It is true that sub-.
F sec. (2) commences with a non obstante clause, but even so, t!le
provison itself is an enabling ·one conferring discretion on tbc
·.Wealth tax Officer to determine the.net value of the assets' of tho
business_ as' a wh~le ha'ving reg'ard to its balance_ she,ts as on th•
valu~iion date, instead of proceeding under sub sec. (I). In other
words: It. is .optionnl for the Wealth tax Officer to- reHort to either
of the methods even in the case where the net value ,,,fa business
carried on by the assessee is to be determined. Thirdly, even when ho
·proceeds under sub sec. (2) he has to determine the net value of tbo
business as a whol.e havin'g regard to the balance-sheet of such busine"
as on the valuation dat~; the pharase "having regard tc the balancc-
H sheet of.~uch business" as judicially interpreted means thl.l the Weal~·.
tax Officer. has to. take into consider~ti<Jn or act>Ollnt the balaat.-
JUG:Gl LAL v. WEALTH TAX OFFICER (Tu/zapurkar, J.) 49

sheet' of such business for such valuation and not that such balance- A
sheet is conclusive or. binding or.decisive of the values .of assets appear-
ing therein. Fourthly, the said sub-section also says that the Wealth-
tax Officer has to "make such adjustments therein as may be pre-
scribed" .and in this- behalf Rule 2A and 2B already quoted above
indicate what adjustments the Wealth-tax Officer has to make while
determining the net value of. the business as a whole. Particularly B
sub-rule (2) of Rule 2B clearly provides that where the market value
of an asset exceeds its written down value or ·book value by more
than 20 per ci:nt, the value of that asset for the purposes of Rule 2A
shall be taken. to be its market value. In other words, it is clear
that even where the Wealth-tax Officer has resorted to sec. 7 (2) for

- determining the value of assets of a business as a whqle the written
down values or book values of specific assets as appearing in the
balance-sheet are not sacr~sanct and when the market value exceeds
c

the written down value or book value by more than 20 per cent, the.
Wealth-tax Officer has to adopt the market value of . such assets
for the purposes of this Act. This is apart from the f>osition that ·
the resort to sec. 7 (2) itself iS discretionary and optional,' the pro- D
vision being an enabling one. •

Since in the instant case the Wealth tax Officer was of the view
that the book values of specific house properties as indicated in the
returns filed by·appellant No. 2 were far far below their market
values, he was justified in making a referrence to the Valuation Officets E
under sec.- l 6A of theAct and the notices is.sued by the Valuatio_n'
Officers in pursuance of such reference were also valid.
. ' '

Jn the result the" appeal fails an<\ is dismissed with. costs.

F
N. V. K. Appeal dismi~sed,

•
" ' •