WTR No.2 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:-30.3.2010 The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Haryana, Rohtak ...Petitioner Versus Kunal Mahajan, Mahajan House, Panipat ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Krishan Mehta, Sr.Standing Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shaveta Malhotra & Ms.Harpreet Kaur, Advocates for the respondent. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The brief facts, relevant for disposal of present case and emanating from the record are that the assessee was a partner in the firm M/s Mahajan House, 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 his net wealth. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ordered the exclusion of the aforesaid amount, vide order dated 30.7.1986 (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 13.7.1987 (Annexure D). The application of the revenue for referring the matter to this Court was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 15.12.1987 (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.1,96,584/- due to the firm M/s Indian Weavers from Central Govt. Handloom Export Promotion Council was not liable to wealth tax? WTR No.2 of 2006 2 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record 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 his net wealth or not? Having gone through the record and 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. Such amount of incentive is a personal reward for promotion of export handloom given by 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 under section 2 (e) of the Act, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The instant reference is disposed of accordingly. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 30.3.2010 AS