TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 - I P Bansal and Rajendra Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Dr K Shivaram For the Respondent : Shri Ganesh Bare ORDER:- Per: Rajendra Singh: These appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders both dated 8.4.2011 of CWT(A)-22 for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessee in these appeals in addition to challenging the legal validity of re-opening of the assessment has also disputed the merit of additions made to the net wealth. As disputes raised in both the appeals are identical, these appeals are being disposed by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. We first take up the dispute relating to re-opening of the assessment under section 17 of the Wealth tax Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record and re-opening was therefore valid. CWT(A), therefore, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee aggrieved by which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2.1 Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities whereas the ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 2.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute raised is regarding legal validity of re-opening of the assessment. There is no dispute that the assessee for the relevant years had not filed any return of wealth under section 14A(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the assessee owned certain premises which had been let out on rent. Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness or profession carried on by him; (4) any residential property that has been let out for a minimum period of three hundred days in the previous year; (5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes; (ii) 3.1 The AO during the proceedings asked the assessee to explain as to why the taxable wealth should not be computed by including value of let out premises. The assessee contended that it owned shops/offices unit in Devvrata Premises which were also used by the assessee for carrying on of own business but later when the business activities were reduced, these were let out to M/s. Fugro Geonics (I) Pvt. Ltd. It was also submitted that the premises under consideration were covered by exclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt showed that the premises had been let out for office purposes and it was not the business of the assessee. The property was not in the occupation of the assessee for the purpose of business. It was also not in the nature of commercial establishment or complex. CIT(A), therefore upheld the order of AO assessing the premises to net wealth aggrieved by which the assessee is in appeal in both the years. 3.3 Before us, the ld. AR submitted that in view of the amendment by Finance Act, (2) 1996, the commercial buildings which are not used by the assessee in its business or profession other than business of letting out of the property are taxable to net worth. In this case, the assessee had let out the premises as part of his business and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properties are taxable under Wealth tax Act. In this case the premises were not occupied by the assessee for the purpose of business or profession . The rental income from letting out of the properties had been offered by the assessee as income from house property which has also been accepted by the department. Therefore, letting out of properties can not be considered as business of the assessee. The premises could also not be considered as commercial establishment or commercial complex. Therefore, in our view these premises were not covered by exclusions provided under section 2(ea)(i). We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CWT(A) in upholding the taxability of these premises under the Wealth tax Act. Orders of CWT(A) are, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
