TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CWT(A) excluding the 3 properties from the ambit of net wealth. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - Decided against Revenue. - WTA Nos.18 and 19/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - Shri R.K. Panda and Shri Vikas Awasthy, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Sunil Ganoo For the Respondent : Smt Sunita Billa P. Singh ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : The above 2 appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 23-08-2013 of the CWT(A)-II, Nashik relating to Assessment Years 2009-10 2010-11 respectively. Since identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. WTA No.18/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed the original return of wealth on 31-12-2009 declaring total wealth at ₹ 2,74,70,300/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of wealth on 15-07-2011 declaring total wealth at ₹ 3,28,14,200/-. As this return of wealth was not filed in time it was considered as nonest and thereafter the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the decisions of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune in the cases of [1] Satvinder Singh vs DCWT (2007) 109 ITD 241 (Pune) and [2] Dy.CWT Circle-2, Pune vs. ShrL Subhash H.Lodha (WTA No. 5 to /Pn/2011 (A.Yrs.2000- 01 to 2002-03)and Dy.CWT Circle-2,Pune vs. Smt.Sulbha S. Lodha (WTA No. 36/PN/2011(A.Y.2006-07) dt.18-03-2013, as claimed and relied upon by the appellant. (b) Further, I do not agree with the view of the AO that merely because of the rental income received from the said properties viz at Chembur, Thane and at Fort, Mumbai, are shown by the appellant under the head of income from house property and hence, the appellant is not entitled for exemption under the W T Act. From the facts, I am of the considered opinion that said rental income shown, either under the head of Income from House Property , or income from business in Income tax return, is not the deciding factor/criteria for determining exemption or taxability under Wealth tax Act. The Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT Rajkot-II vs Vasumatiben Chhaganlal Virani [Tax Appeal No.932 of 2012] dt. 11-01-2013, has held and observed that It thus remains established that the property in question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such these respective properties are not commercial establishments or complexes in their own capacity. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete amend any of the grounds with prior permission of the Hon'ble CIT, as per the circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant prays to file any of the additional evidence appropriate to the grounds taken in appeal. (Identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in A.Y. 2010-11). 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the order of the CWT(A). He submitted that the order of the CWT (A) does not clarify on the aspect as to how the 3 different units of property are commercial establishments or complexes, which by simple understanding is plural term and denotes more than 1 unit of property. He submitted that the order of the CWT(A) is silent on the issue as to how the single units do qualify u/s.2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act to be exempt. He submitted that when the section is very clear, there was no necessity of any interpretation. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) he submitted that in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-cls. (1) to (5) thereto. In the light of the main enactment provided in cl. (i) and the exception provided thereto by way of excluding the properties or the houses enumerated in the sub-cls. (1) to (5) from the main enactment, the intention of the legislature becomes clear that the legislature did not intend to bring all buildings or land appurtenant thereto whether used for residential or commercial purposes within the ambit of assets chargeable to tax under the WT Act. Thus, the question of rendering the cl. (i) being redundant does not arise. 9.1 Referring to the above decision, he submitted that the Tribunal has further held that in the case of commercial establishment it is not necessary that it should be composed of or can be made of interrelated parts. 9.2 He also relied on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy.CWT Vs. Shri Subhash H. Lodha vide WTA No.5 to 7/PN/2011 order dated 18-03-2013 for A.Y. 2000-01 to 2002-03 and in the case of Dy.CWT Vs. Smt. Sulbha S. Lodha vide WTA No.36/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2006-07. 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CWT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO. 10.1 We find the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasumatiben Chhaganlal Viran (Supra) while deciding an identical issue has observed as under : 8. To our mind sub-clause(5) of clause(i) of section 2(ea) nowhere requires that a commercial establishment or a complex cannot be established in a house property. It only provides that any property in the nature of commercial establishment or complexes shall be excluded from the term 'assets' as defined in clause (i) of section 2(ea). Further that it nowhere provides that only if such commercial complex is occupied by the owner then alone the exclusion shall take effect. On both counts thus contention of the Revenue cannot be accepted. It is significant to note that exception sub-clause (3) of clause (i) of section 2(ea) pertains to any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him. Thus whenever legislature desired that exclusion may apply only if property is self occupied, it was so provided. Significantly, in sub-clause (5), there is no such insistence. 10.2 Similarly, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Subhash H. Lodha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted out that the same was on rent to Wipro Ltd., and was being used for commercial activities. The aforesaid facts have been noted by the CWT(Appeals) in para 4.2 and 4.3 of his order and they have not been controverted by the Revenue at any stage. Considered in the aforesaid factual background and the parity of reasoning in the case of Satvinder Singh (supra), we find no error on the part of the CWT(Appeals) in holding that the aforesaid properties are covered by the exception provided in Explanation (5) below section 2(ea)(i) of the Act and, therefore, the same are excludible for the purposes of computing net wealth chargeable to tax for the A.Y.200-01. 10.3 In view of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal cited (Supra) and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CWT(A) who has also followed the above decisions while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee we find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CWT(A) excluding the 3 properties from the ambit of net wealth. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 11. Identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in WTA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
