TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd excessive." 3. The facts briefly are as under. Assessee filed the original return on 20-3-2002 declaring net wealth at Rs. 4,86,400 for the assessment year 1998-99, Rs. 5,52,600 for assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. 4,45,500 for assessment year 2000-01. While framing the assessment order, Assessing Officer noticed the wealth declared by the assessee was with regard to the vehicles owned by the assessee and assessee claimed exemption in respect of two residential flats having address at 191, NCPA, Dorabji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 021 and other being Flat No. 12A, Ist Floor, Embassy Apartments, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. The claim of the assessee was that NCPA and Embassy flats are not taxable to wealth tax as, according to the assessee, it was business assets and hence does not fall within the ambit of section 2( ea ) of the Wealth-tax Act. Assessee contended that sub-section (3) of section 2( ea ) exempts any house property by the assessee for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him within the ambit of property that falls taxable under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Assessing Officer however, disallowed assessee s claim for the reason that though the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative submitted assets for the purpose of wealth-tax includes property of every description movable or immovable, but does not include any house which the assessee may occupy for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him in the light of section 2( ea )(3). Inviting our attention to the decision of the learned first appellate authority in the case of Standard Distilleries and Breweries (P.) Ltd. dated 30-10-2002 mentioned by the learned first appellate authority, assessee s representative submitted this decision cannot be applied in the instant case for the years under consideration. Assessee s representative submitted that CIT(Appeals) came to the above conclusion mainly on the ground that the assessee in that case has not carried on any business during the previous year relevant to assessment year under appeal. Inviting our attention to paperbook pages 34 and 35 para 11, assessee s representative submitted in the income tax appellate order dated 19-9-2003 in the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 1998-99, CIT(Appeals) clearly records that certain evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer, but he disbelieved it. The evidences produced were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it should be substantively occupied by the assessee for the purpose of business activities. The very use or keeping it ready for business purpose is not sufficient and it cannot be said that it is one occupied for business purpose. Assessee has not produced the any evidence to show that these assets have been used for business purpose. Normally a flat is a residential area or atleast in the instant case the flat is in residential area and therefore presumably it is a residential flat not used for business purpose. 8. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities. The word "occupy" according to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (Revised Edn.4th) means to take possession of, to capture, to hold or being in possession, to take up as a space, time, etc. According to Webster s New International Dictionary, Edn. 1996 / Vol.II, the word "occupy" means to take possession of, occupy, employ or modify, etc. In other words, according to assessee, if the flat is kept ready or taken possession for business purpose, that itself is sufficient to make it a business asset. 9. The decision relied on by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purposes of business with very strong unimpeachable evidence and that could not be done at the end of the assessee. It was one of the submission of the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) in the income-tax matter for Assessment Year 1998-99 that Assessing Officer has not given any reason or conducted any enquiry to come to the conclusion that the property was not used for business purposes. The relevant para reads as under : "11. It is not the case of Assessing Officer that it had made any inquiry to come to a finding contrary to what has been asserted. What was in fact done was that the Assessing Officer disbelieved evidence produced on this issue. Further more, the assessee had enclosed telephone bill, electricity bill of the building owned by the assessee. The repair and maintenance expenses of the aforesaid flat was also been paid by the assessee, the insurance charges, house taxes have also been paid. All these expenditures has been as legitimate business expenditures for the year concerned by the same Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that sufficient evidence are available on record to justify the claim of depreciation of the assessee. The assessee also pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
