|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 3701 Records
-
2020 (3) TMI 580
Net taxable wealth - Assessment of net taxable wealth on the immovable property - ½ share of flat at Khairatabad - HELD THAT:- It is not in disputed that the house was not under repair. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the house is habitable. In such situation, it cannot be treated as a residential property in the true sense. Further, the Ld. WTO has adopted the market value on estimate basis without any supporting evidence which is not justifiable. Considering the above facts of the issue, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid residential house cannot be treated as an asset exigible for wealth tax. However, only the undivided share in the land attributable to the residential flat shall be exigible for wealth tax which the Ld. WTO shall estimate after obtaining the value from the Stamp Valuation Authority of the State Government and by considering all the relevant factors and thereafter arrive at the taxable wealth. It is ordered accordingly.
¼ share of land at Jubilee Hills - We are of the considered view that the ad-hoc estimate of the market value of the immovable asset is not justifiable. Further, the unfinished building cannot be treated as a building exigible to wealth tax. However, the urban land is exigible to wealth tax as per section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. WTO is hereby directed to obtain the market value of the land from the Stamp Valuation Authority of the state Government for the relevant assessment year and after considering all the relevant factors estimate and adopt the same for computing the taxable wealth of the assessee.
Land at Kapra - Assessee had intimated to the Ld. WTO that the land purchased along with others were for the purpose of the business viz., construction of flats which are to be subsequently sold and therefore it should be treated as stock in trade. Further the assessee had also conducted in such a manner so as to establish that the land was purchased for the purpose of business by obtaining permission for construction from GHMC. In such situation, merely because the permission for granting construction from GHMC was applied on 25/7/2009 it is not appropriate to treat the “urban land” as “asset” U/s. 2(ea)(i)(v) of the Act because the moment the land is purchased for trading it has to be treated as stock-in-trade and section 2(ea)(i)(2) vividly exempts stock in trade within the purview of “assets” for the purpose of computing taxable wealth. Hence, we do not subscribe to the view of the Ld.WTO. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Ld. WTO to exclude the land at Kapra for the purpose of determining the taxable wealth of the assessee.
Land at Katedan - Assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to justify his claim with cogent evident before the Ld. WTO. Accordingly, we hereby remit back the matter to the file of Ld. WTO for de novo consideration on the issue.
Land at L.B. Naga - We are of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to justify his claim with cogent evident before the Ld. WTO on this issue also. Accordingly, we hereby remit back this issue to the file of Ld. WTO for de novo consideration.
Motor Car - On perusing the issue, we are of the view that the Ld. WTO has rightly assed the motor car to wealth tax because neither the assessee is in the business of running motor car nor hiring them. Further the motor car is not held by the assessee as stock in trade. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. WTO on this issue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1058
Wealth tax assessment - valuation of land - value of the asset as on the valuation date - Addition on the basis of the instance of sale occurred subsequent to the date of valuation when the impugned land was subject to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as on the date of valuation - HELD THAT:- There could not have been a better guide for the Wealth Tax Officer for adopting the market value of the property in question than the actual sale itself which occurred within a few months from the relevant date of the valuation.
In present case though the actual sale might have taken place after the valuation date, substantial amount of money was paid prior to the valuation date as an advance consideration. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. A conjoint reading of section 7 and section 2(q) of the Act would indicate that the requirement of the law is that the value of any asset for the purpose of this Act shall be its value as on the valuation date. For determining the value of the asset as on the valuation date there cannot be any embargo on the Wealth Tax Officer not to take into consideration valuation of identical assets immediately preceding or succeeding the valuation date or that he has to arrive at the valuation of the asset only as per the valuation report.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Wadiyar [2015 (9) TMI 1065 - SUPREME COURT] is not on the proposition that valuation of an identical asset immediately succeeding the valuation date cannot be taken into consideration for determining the valuation of the asset as on the valuation date - in said judgment, it is stated that valuation of the asset has to be on the valuation date which has reference to the last day of the previous year. In other words, it is 31st March and immediately preceding the assessment year. The valuation of the asset arrived at as on that date is the valuation on which wealth tax is assessable. Clarifying the matter further Supreme Court held that the Wealth Tax Officer has to form an opinion about the estimated price if the assets were to be sold in the assumed market and the estimated price would be the one which an assumed willing purchaser would pay for it.
No error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. Further, there is concurrent finding of the two appellate authorities below and we do not find such finding to be vitiated by any material irregularity or perversity, warranting interference in an appellate proceeding under Section 27A of the Act.
-
2020 (2) TMI 540
Wealth tax assessment - exemption of 5(vi) for the purpose of self occupied residential property - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has already exercised the option under Section 5(vi) of W.T. Act in respect of property at Shimla. The option having already been exercised by the assessee in the return; and also the option having not been altered from the assessee’s side by way of any revised return to claim the exemption under Section 5(vi) of W.T. Act in respect of Aralias DLF property at Gurgaon; we are of the view that in these facts and circumstances, the contention of the assessee to allow exemption under Section 5(vi) of W.T. Act on account of self occupied property in respect of Aralias DLF property at Gurgaon cannot be permitted at this stage.
As both sides have agreed before us at the time of hearing, the Assessee is eligible for deduction on account of loan amounting to the aforesaid ₹ 8,384,306/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to ₹ 8,384,306/- for the purpose of assessing taxable wealth of the assessee. Subject to this direction, the aforesaid enhancement of ₹ 83,62,752/- made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to taxable wealth, by taking the value of aforesaid Aralias DLF property at Gurgaon at ₹ 1,67,46,763/-is confirmed. Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1135
Wealth tax assessment - Period of limitation - Order was passed beyond period of one year as required u/s 17A(2) of the WT Act, and consequently the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) - ITAT which has, confirmed the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals), remanding the matter to the Wealth Tax Officer for re-examination and re-assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, we are of the opinion that, the observation made therein that explanation (3) to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act is applicable, is really a prima facie observation. This is clear from the fact that both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have directed the Wealth Tax Officer to re-examine the matter, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein.
ITAT has also observed that the issues raised in the matter require investigation of facts. From all this, it is quite clear that the observations made in the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT, are prima facie observations and such observations, are made only for the purpose of remanding the matter to the Wealth Tax Officer for fresh consideration.
No reason to interfere with the impugned orders and revoke the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the ITAT. The Wealth Tax Officer will have to investigate into the factual aspect and will have to reexamine the matter and thereafter, conclude whether the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax, is indeed attracted in this case, in the light of explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act. The issue as to whether, explanation 3 to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act, is attracted or not, is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the Wealth Tax Officer will have to consider this issue as well. Needless to mention that the Wealth Tax Officer will have to afford an opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter in pursuance of the remand. The substantial questions of law as framed, therefore, cannot be answered in favour of the appellant, at this stage, as raised.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1134
Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth tax Act - Defective notice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act is para materia with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Being so, the facts for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will be applicable to the facts of the present case. As seen from the above notice for imposing penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
As held in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER]
We are inclined to hold that the penalty proceedings u/s.18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act initiated by the AO is void ab initio and allow the appeals of the assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 603
Wealth tax assessment - notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act - HELD THAT:- Provisions of section 42 of the act saves only validly issued notices within the time limit, if, not served upon the assessee, not served upon him in time and served upon him in an improper manner, if not objected before WTO.
Notice itself has been issued beyond the time prescribed u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act. Thus, according to us the provision of section 42 does not apply to a situation where the notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act. The ld CWT (A) has erred in invoking of provisions of section 42 of the WT Act to such notice, which has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 16(2) of the WT Act. Accordingly, we hold that as the ld Wealth Tax Officer has failed to issue the notice u/s 16(2) on or before 30.08.2012 but issued on 13.09.2012, is invalid and consequently wealth tax assessment order passed on the assessee cannot be sustained, hence, quashed. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (11) TMI 1155
Net wealth assessment - value of the land as on the date of valuation - whether the same is includable as net wealth in the hands of the assessee in the absence of permission received for construction from the competent authority or any construction being carried out, as on the valuation date ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for AY 2014-15 we direct the Assessing Officer to include the value of the aforesaid lands in the hands of the assessee in the respective years. However, for the purpose of determining the value as on the valuation date, the assessee shall file the valuation report from the Registered Valuer or the Assessing Officer may obtain the necessary valuation report from the DVO in this regard and compute the net wealth and Assessing Officer is also directed to allow the value of debts as on the dates of purchase of plot in the hands of the assessee, if still outstanding.
Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land owned by the assessee, as on the date of valuation, was to be included in the hands of the assessee - assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CWT(A) in not allowing the deduction of debts accrued - HELD THAT:- The said issue also stands squarely covered by our decision in own case which was an appeal filed by the Revenue as the CWT(A) in those cases had allowed the claim.
Value of the lands to be adopted and the costs of the debts to be allowed - HELD THAT:- In line with our directions above in the case of Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Assessing Officer shall compute the value of the said land as on the date of valuation of the lands in line with our directions in paras above and also allow the claim of the debts against the value of the property after due verification and if still outstanding. Thus, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Escapement of wealth - notice u/s 17 of WT Act - reasons recorded for re-opening - HELD THAT:- We have in the paras above held that the lands owned by the assessee are taxable wealth and to be included in the hands of the assessee, then the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid agricultural lands were exempt from wealth tax do not stand. In any case, no such plea was raised before us. Time and again the assessee pleaded that the lands in question were not ‘urban-land’. We have already decided the issue that the value of the said lands were includable in the hands of the assessee as on the valuation date. In such circumstances, we uphold the initiation of assessment proceedings in the hands of the assessee and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee
-
2019 (11) TMI 1124
Wealth escaping assessment - Lack of jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle-9(1), Bengaluru who issued notice u/s 17 of WT Act - HELD THAT:- We find merits in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the validity of notice issued under section 17 of the Act is primarily required to be adjudicated before a decision can be rendered on the merits of the additions made in the assessment.
Under section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when a challenge to jurisdiction is raised, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to adjudicate the same or he has to make reference of the issue of determination of jurisdiction to the authorities specified under section 124(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the above statutory provisions, we are of the view that it is incumbent on the part of the CWT(A) to have adjudicated on this issue
CWT(A), in the impugned order, has not addressed the issue at all and has proceeded on the basis that the reasons for reopening were valid without going to the question as to who formed the belief regarding escapement of wealth chargeable to tax and who subsequently continued the proceedings under section 17 of the Act and whether they authority in law to do so. In our opinion, these issues are very vital and since these issues are not been adjudicated by the CWT(A), we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CWT(A) and remand the question of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to the CWT(A) for fresh consideration, after due opportunity of being heard afforded to the assessee.
-
2019 (11) TMI 1121
Net Wealth determination - valuation of property - Fair market value versus Circle rate - It was submitted that, assessee was not even in a position to avail the loan against this property, as the said land had encroachments on it - HELD THAT:- In the absence of production of any material in support of the assessee’s contentions, the AO has adopted the circle rate available in www.tnreginet.net as the market value and assessed the value for each of the impugned assessment year. The ld.CWT(A) has held that the assessee canvassed certain factors for adoption of lower value, however, he has not proved either to the satisfaction of the AO or to the satisfaction of the ld CWT(A) that what is canvassed by him is the fact and hence he upheld the action of the AO for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, respectively. Even before us also, the assessee has not placed any material in support of his contentions. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the ld.CWT(A), supra, and hence dismiss all these assessee’s appeals.
-
2019 (11) TMI 44
Jewellery estimation - Revised valuation in respect of all the items of jewellery whether or not covered by the FIRs - reduced value of the jewellery for the purpose of determining the net wealth of the assessee and passed the assessment orders - valuation figures as supported by valuation report of Registered Valuer and WTO - HELD THAT:- In respect of the value of such items of jewellery as are not covered by the FIR, it occurs to our mind that there is inherent inconsistency in the approach of the Ld. CIT(A), because while referring to schedule III of the Act in the light of Section 7 read with Rule 18 thereof, CIT(A) made an observation that the jewellery shall be valued on the estimation of the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. If it would be so, we do not find any logic in the CIT(A) directing AO to take the higher value as per the valuation report by ignoring the items the revised the value of which is less than the returned value. Further in the case of CWT vs. Raghunath Singh Thakur [2008 (4) TMI 152 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that where assessee’s valuation figures are supported by valuation report of Registered Valuer and WTO has not made a reference to valuation cell, then the assessee’s figures are required to be accepted.
Insofar as the items of jewellery covered by the FIR, the assessee is bound by the valuation secured by the Hon’ble High Court and the assessee cannot seek to reopen the same. Insofar as the items of jewellery not covered by FIR, however, the Revenue is expected to take a consistent stand in respect of all the items thereof and in view of the settled position of law, the assessing officer is directed to consider the revised valuation secured by police or by the assessee, as the case may be, and submitted by the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed in part.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1257
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi and also in terms of the Circular No.5 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD)-(ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes.
In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.
-
2019 (10) TMI 90
Wealth tax assessment - exclusion of land which is under litigation - HELD THAT:- When the compound wall construction had started, there is no reference in facts mentioned in the case (refer page 18). However, it is mentioned that even on 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007, the construction work was disturbed by the defendants. Thereafter, the case was filed in F.Y 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008-09. But, before us, the AY pending for adjudication is A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08. The dispute on title was started only in A.Y 2008-09. Therefore, it has no bearing on pending assessment years. Now the dispute is very much settled and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of assessee is rejected.
Even though assessee had title but could not enjoy the property due to dispute. The asset is recognised as asset only when it is enjoyed by the assessee for the period subsequent to the disputed assessment years. Therefore, in our view, she should be allowed to get some concession - similar concession should also be extended to assessee. Therefore, we are directing A.O to allow the 500 Sq. mtr as deduction and balance can be brought to tax under WTA. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1102
Non filing of return of wealth under Wealth Tax Act - Penalty levied u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee did not file return of wealth under Wealth Tax Act voluntarily. The assessee did not dispute the service of notice u/s 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act before the AO at assessment proceedings or otherwise. Therefore it is a fit case of levy of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore agree with the view of the Ld Accountant Member that penalty be imposed against the assessee. Dismiss all the appeals of the assessee. Let the files be put up before the regular bench for passing the consequential order.
-
2019 (9) TMI 416
Wealth tax assessment - asset to fall within the ambit of taxable asset - whether the land being “Khasra No. 335, Village Bandwahi, Gurgaon’ admeasuring 21.65 acres is a taxable asset for the purpose of wealth tax or not ? - HELD THAT:- Here in this case, the first exception that the land has been classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and is used for the agricultural purposes will not apply as assessee himself has contended that it was a non agricultural and uncultivable land being (Gair Mumkin Pahar).
Now the only condition left which is required to be examined, whether any construction of a building is permissible under any law for the time being in force the area in which land is situated. If it is ascertained that construction of a building is permissible, then ostensibly it will be held as taxable asset for the purpose of imposing wealth tax.
However, if construction of a building is not permissible, then it shall be outside the scope of taxable asset. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the opinion that this matter needs to be sent back to the file of the AO, who shall seek clarification from the Government authorities or the local authority as to whether the construction is permissible by any law in force on the land in which this asset is situated. Assessee will also try to obtain necessary certificates/Records from the authorities in this regard and cooperate with the AO and if it is found to be a waste land where construction is not permitted, then it should be removed from taxable asset. With this direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1093
Wealth tax escapement - Notice issue u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act - whether the impugned land is not liable for wealth-tax assessment - urban land as per Explanation 1 to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - HELD THAT:- Wealth is leviable only on unproductive asset and not on commercial asset. This is clear from the provisions of Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Parliament has in its wisdom foreseen that for commencement of an industrial project, it would take minimum two years for securing permission and approval and hence, such land which is held as per the objects of the company for industrial purposes has to be exempted from the levy of wealth-tax for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition. The word “used” in the statute is land held for industrial purpose during the initial two years period. There is no requirement that such land should be actually used for industrial purpose during the said period of initial two years.
When a company with certain stated objects in its memorandum acquires land to implement the object, undoubtedly, the value of such land has to be excluded from the taxable wealth during the initial two years period.
On facts on record, it is clear that the land was held by the assessee for industrial purpose for setting up information technology park which includes conveniences and facilities of a specialized nature for information technology industry. The CWT(A), therefore, was correct in excluding value of the impugned land from the taxable wealth.
The finding of the Wealth Tax Officer that the assessee has no intention to undertake setting up of technopark is not based on any tangible material. As mentioned earlier, the main object of the assessee-company for which it was incorporated was to establish technopark and facilities which provided for IT industries. The assessee had made attempt to undertake land filling / leveling. The efforts were stopped as per the stay order dated 23.09.2006 from the District Collector. There have been various correspondences between the assessee and the authorities concerned for lifting the stay granted for land filling / leveling.
The observation of the WTO that the assessee had no intention to construct any techopark is without any basis. Even otherwise, when the stated object of the assessee-company in the memorandum of association is to establish techno park, for the initial two years from the date of acquisition of land, the impugned land cannot be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, irrespective of the fact that the land was not actually used for the industrial purpose during the said period. In the instant case, for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, the period of two years has not expired from the date of acquisition of land. Therefore, we are of the view that the same cannot be brought within the definition of urban land as per Explanation 1 to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. - Decided against revenue
-
2019 (8) TMI 1092
Wealth tax assessment - valuation of property - whether land in question was Sanad land and the assessee does not have absolute right over the land? - determination of net wealth on the basis of DVO report - whether land in question does not come under the definition of urban land? - HELD THAT:- The facts borne out from records clearly indicates that the land in question was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra through Collector, Thane, for the purpose of setting up Chemical Factory in the year 1957. The said land was converted into non-agricultural purpose in the year 1957, and as per, which the land in question has to be utilized for the purpose of setting up of chemical factory. The conditions, further stipulates that out of total area of land of 1,06,238 sq. yards, land to the extent of only 10,607 sq yards (approximately 10%) should be used of the purpose of industrial activity and the balance land to the extent of 95,630 sq yards (approximately 90%) was to be kept open to the sky. The assessee has utilized land for the purpose of construction of factory and other buildings, as per the terms and conditions of acquisition, accordingly 10% of the land was used for setting up manufacturing facility and 90% of land has been kept open to the sky
First arguments in light of ‘Sanad’ executed between the assessee and Government of Maharashtra and land in question was Sanad land and the assessee does not have absolute right over the land, therefore the same cannot be considered as asset, for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, does not hold water, because as per the terms and conditions of ‘Sanad’, it was very clear that the assessee is owner of the land subject to certain conditions, therefore merely for the reason of imposition of certain conditions, at the time of acquisition of land, it cannot be said that, the assessee does not have any absolute right over the land and accordingly, the first argument of the AR of the assessee fails.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CWT vs R.K.Mehra [2009 (7) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] had considered an identical issue and held that a farm land, on which construction was not permissible under municipal law, would not be includable in definition of urban land chargeable to wealth tax, even though assessee has constructed a farm house on said land. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the land in question does not come within definition of asset as defined u/s 2(ea) of the Act, because 10% of the land has been used for the purpose, for which it has been acquired and also constructed building thereon by the approval of appropriate authority and the remaining 90% of land has been kept open to the sky, as per the terms and conditions of acquisition, as well as conversion order and consequently, the remaining 90% of the land is covered in exclusionary clause (b) of the explanation to section 2 (ea) of the W.T.Act, 1957
We find that the department has determined net wealth of the assessee, on the basis of valuation done by the DVO, in respect of property for AY 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, whereas from assessment year 2006-07 on wards to till date, the department has not assessed the assessee to wealth tax. From the above, it is very clear that the AO has assessed, the assesse for some year on the basis of report of DVO, whereas for some years, the return filed by the assesee has been accepted without any additions to net wealth declared by the assessee, even though there is no change in facts. It is a well settled principles of law that although, principles of res judicata may not apply to income tax proceedings, but Rule of consistency needs to be followed, unless there is change in facts and circumstances for taking a different view. This legal position is supported by the decision of Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] as reiterated the principles of consistency in income tax proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that even on this count the AO was incorrect in determination of net wealth on the basis of report of DVO for the impugned assessment years.
AO was incorrect in determination of net wealth on the basis of DVO report. CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards valuation of property for the purpose of charging wealth tax. We do not find any error in the findings of ld.CIT(A) and hence , we are inclined to uphold the CIT(A) order and dismissed appeal filed by the revenue.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1091
Wealth tax assessment - asset as business asset and not liable for wealth tax - whether 4 6.102 cents of land at Palarivattom, Kochi is not chargeable to wealth tax on the ground that the same was used for parking of vehicles belonging to the employees of the assessee company and hence was a business asset? - admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT:- The affidavit filed by the assessee is a fresh document which was not made available with the lower authorities and it is required to be examined by the Assessing Officer so as to find out whether the impugned land has been used as parking space for the employees of the assessee-Company. It is the duty of the assessee to prove the impugned landed property is a business asset when the assessee claimed it is not liable for wealth tax. On the other hand, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer has to prove it which is not correct. We vacate this finding of the CIT(A).
Since the assessee has filed affidavit which was not made available to the Assessing Officer on earlier occasion, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary enquiries regarding possibility of using the impugned land as parking space for the employees of the assessee and if the land is used as parking space for the employees of the assessee-Company, then the Assessing Officer should treat the said asset as business asset and not liable for wealth tax. With this observation, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Thus, the grounds of appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1013
Revision u/s 25 by Pr. CIT/CIT - condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- More importantly, writ petitioners have also paid the tax on wealth that has been overstated in the returns. As already been alluded to supra that respondent has even recorded in the impugned orders that the properties which have been erroneously included in the returns by the writ petitioners are clearly exempt u/s 2(ea)(i)(4).
It is not completely forbidden to have a cursory look and have a birds eye view qua merits of the matter while testing whether delay in a given case deserves to be condoned. As this cannot be the sole determinant, this Court has considered the same as one of the buttressing features in search of an answer to the question as to whether delay is condonable / can be condoned in the instant cases.
Section 25 of said Act is akin to Section 264. This Court has already passed an order RAMUPILLAI KUPPURAJ VERSUS THE ITO [2019 (7) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] with regard to condonation of delay in a matter pertaining to Section 264. This Court is informed that as of now there is no intra-court appeal against the said order and therefore, the said order is operating. The circumstances and facts are also more or less similar. The principle nonetheless applies.
From a perusal of Section 8 it comes to light that exercise of powers of respondent u/s 25 is clearly comparable with exercise of powers of Pr. CIT/CIT u/s 264.
Owing to all that have been set out supra, it follows as a sequitur that this is a fit case to set aside Impugned Order I. Impugned order I being order dated 10.08.2018 is set aside and Writ Petition No.28432 of 2019 is allowed.
With regard to Impugned Order II, the same is set aside insofar as it rejects the writ petitioner's request for condonation of delay for Assessment years 2003-04 to 2010-2011. The other part of impugned order II wherein prayer for condonation of delay for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was acceded to is sustained. Now that the delay has been condoned, request of writ petitioner for refund shall be examined on merits, in accordance with law and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2019 (8) TMI 312
Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act - alleged that the assessee would have escaped from payment of wealth tax - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) proceeded to affirm the orders passed by the AO levying penalty by referring to the amendment to the Statute, which came into force with effect from 01.4.1997. To be noted that the assessments under consideration are for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the assessee's specific case was that they were under the bona fide belief that the house property would not fall within the definition of the term 'asset' as defined u/s 2(ea)(i) of the Act.
It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the assessee did not file the return. In the first instance, notice was issued u/s 17(1) and only thereafter, the return was filed. This, according to the assessee, was because of their bona fide belief that the property would not fall within the definition of the term 'asset' as defined under Section 2(ea)(1). If at all the AO imposes penalty under Section 18(1)(c), by referring to Explanation 3, the AO should have rendered a finding that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee so as to invoke the deeming provision.
As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there was no such finding by the CIT(A). We also find that there was no such specific finding rendered by the Assessing Officer as well. Thus, in the absence of any proof to show that there was an attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars or to furnish inaccurate particulars, the levy of penalty was not justified. - Decided against the Revenue
-
2019 (8) TMI 5
Addition on account of cash in hand - treating the same as taxable wealth u/s 2(ea)(vi) - wealth tax appeal is against the finding of CIT(A) treating the cash in hand held by the assessee in his sole proprietorship concern M/s Kargil Bullion as a taxable asset liable for wealth tax - HELD THAT:- Both the lower authorities erred in including the business asset i.e. cash in hand as wealth of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged cash was part of regular cash in hand maintained by the assessee for the business purpose and due to the holiday on the last date of financial year and on the 1st & 2nd April of the subsequent financial year, the cash received by the assessee on account of sale of gold at Noida and Agra branch on 30.03.2007 & 31.03.2007 remained as cash in hand which was subsequently, deposited in parts in the bank account on 3rd April 2007 & 4th April 2007 and 5th April 2007. As a result of which cash in hand as on 30.04.2007 was only ₹ 13,230/-. Therefore, the alleged amount being held by the assessee as a business asset in the capacity as proprietor of business concern M/s Kargil Bullion the same is not liable to be included as assets in the wealth of the assessee for the purpose of levying wealth tax. Thus, ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
