9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 67/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 2004-05 (By assessee). 2. Ground of appeal No. 1 by the assessee reads as under:- "The learned Commissioner of (Appeals) has erred in law in facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Wealth Tax Officer by treating the immovable property of your Appellant known as "Elcome House" which was used for business purposes as an Asset within the meaning of Sec. 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 without considering the exemption provided under sub clause (5) of the said section in respect of a Commercial establishment and also sub clause (3) of section 2(ea)(i) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957." 2.1 Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee in the instant case ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(5) of the Act, any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes is not to be included in the definition of assets taxable as wealth. (iv) In the instant case, since the assessee had occupied part of the premises for its own business and the balance was rented out by it to its group companies, who were carrying on their businesses from the same, the assessee submits that the above premises is commercial in nature and not applicable to wealth tax under the Act. (v) Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in the case of Salvinder Singh v. DCWT (109 ITD 241)." 2.2 However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He noted that the premises under conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh v. DCWT reported in 109 ITD 241 (2007). 2.4 However, the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments advance before him. He noted from the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal cited before him that sub clause (3) covers only those houses which are occupied by the assessee for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by the assessee. Therefore, this argument of the assesse has no force. So far as the claim of the assessee that it is covered by exclusion (5) being a commercial establishment or complex, he noted that the assessee in his letter dtd. 21.10.2010 filed before the A.O. has admitted in para 3 that the rent received from the premises has been offered to income tax by the assessee under the head "inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given nor the copies of bills relating to Municipal taxes and electricity bills nor floor plan has been filed despite specific query. Therefore, the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in that case in para 31 all such details were filed by the assessee. Therefore, for want of the facts/details from the assessee the ld. CIT(A) held that the applicability of the said judgment cannot be decided. He accordingly upheld the action of the A.O. in treating the asset chargeable to wealth tax. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CWT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a business enterprise and the property i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of conducting hydrographic, oceanographic, geographical, topographical and oil exploration survey etc. as per letter dated 21.12.2010 filed before the AO. Therefore, the assessee is not in the business of letting out properties. We find the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shankaranarayana Industries and Plantations (P) Ltd. (supra) after considering the various amendments to the Wealth Tax Act and CBDT Circulars issued has held that the intention was not to tax business assets used by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession and also the business assets which are let out, if the assessee is in the business of letting out properties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and direct accordingly. This ground by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground of appeal no.3 being general in nature is dismissed. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 68 and 69/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 (By assessee). 9. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the impugned appeals are identical to the grounds of appeal in Wealth Tax Appeal No. 67/Mum/201. We have already decided the issue and the grounds of appeal no. 1 and 3 by the assessee have been dismissed and ground of appeal no.2 has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. Following the same ratio the grounds of appeal no. 1 and 3 raised by the assessee in the above two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
