TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to be owner of land - Held that:- Even on merits, the order of the AO/FAA cannot be endorsed. It is a fact that assessee had sold a plot of land to one developer and except for the conveyance deed all legal formalities were completed. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as owner of the said plot of land – Therefore, no wealth tax – Decided in favor of Assessee. - WTA No. 17/Mum/2012, WTA No.20/Mum/2012, CO No. 164/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2013 - Sh. R. K. Gupta And Rajendra,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajan R. Vora For the Respondent : Shri Niraj Bansal (DR) ORDER Per Rajendra, A.M. Cross appeals have been filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the assessee company, challenging the order dated15.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to take only 20 % of the value of the land for Wealth Tax purpose without any basis and explanation as against the entire sale consideration of the Development Rights as assessed by the A.O. 2. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored. WTA/20/Mum/2012 Assessee has raised below mentioned grounds of appeal: 1.0.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case arid in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth tax (Appeals)-6 (he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to Wealth tax under section 2(ea) of the Act. 2.0.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. Facts of the case 2. Return of wealth declaring net wealth of Rs. 5.85 Crores was filed on 31.10.2002 by the assessee. AO finalised the assessment u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act) on 24.03.2005 accepting the Net Wealth as declared by the assessee. On 31.03.2009 a notice u/s.17 of the Act was issued to the assessee, as the AO was of the opinion that taxable wealth had escaped assessment. In response to the notice, assessee vide its letter dated 13.04.2009 requested that return filed on 31.10.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 17 of W.T. Act, 1957 (T.E. - Rs. 72,83,888/-)." AO finalised the assessment on 24.12.2009 u/s.16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Act determining the Net Wealth of the assessee company at Rs. 13.3 Crores. 2.1.During the re-assessment proceedings,AO found that assessee had transferred development rights of the residential land to Kanakia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (KCPL) that the possession of such land was also transferred effectively, that the developer had the possession of the land for development, that the assessee had shown the value of the free-hold at Borivili at Rs. Nil because as per the assesse it had sold the said piece of land on 31st August 2001 for a total price of Rs. 6.48 Crores,that later on assessee had also transferred an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights could reasonably be considered to the interest of the assessee in the said plot of land. As a result, he confirmed an addition of Rs. 1.48 Crores to the total wealth of the assessee. 2.3.Before us, DR submitted that AO had reasons to believe that Net Wealth of the assessee had escaped assessment, that matter was re-opened once it was found that assessee had not disclosed the sale of plot of land to the developer, that in absence of conveyance deed, assessee was the owner of the plot, that FAA wrongly deleted the additions made by the AO to the Net Wealth of the assessee. AR submitted that re-opening was bad in law, that there was no failure on part of the assessee,that from the reasons recorded it was clear that assessee had not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has stated about the failure of the assessee,as envisaged by the provisions of law.The reasons recorded by the AO speak of a development agreement entered in to by the assessee with a developer. Assessee had disclosed all these facts while filing the return of wealth/income. We find that assessee had paid tax under the head ' Capital Gains' on sale of the plot of land in question.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that AO had no jurisdiction,in the case under consideration,to re-open the completed assessment without having any reasonable basis.We find that in the matter of German Remedies (supra)Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has discussed the issue of reopening of assessment after the period of four years as under: "Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
