TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty let out at Pune Camp and at Lalbaug Society, the same were being used for commercial activities. Even with regard to the Office space at Sharda Arcade, Pune, the assessee pointed out that the same was on rent to Wipro Ltd., and was being used for commercial activities. - 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. - Decision in the case of Satvinder Singh vs. DCWT [2006 (9) TMI 246 - ITAT PUNE-B] followed - Decided against Revenue. - WTA. No. 5 to 7/PN/2011, WTA.No.36/PN/2011 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) grossly erred in holding that the commercial properties let out by the assessee are outside the purview of sec. 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 without appreciating that the said properties are commercial house properties and not in the nature of commercial complexes. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in interpreting the term commercial property thereby treating it indistinguishable from commercial complexes or commercial establishments. Such an interpretation renders the expression 'whether used for residential or commercial purposes' used in sub clause (i) of clause (ea) otiose which could not be the intent of legislation. 6. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption contained in Explanation (5) to section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the net wealth of ₹ 7,50,87,425/- for the purposes of chargeability of the Wealth Tax. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the CWT (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal. Though the Revenue has raised multiple Grounds of Appeal, but essentially the grievance is against the action of the CWT(Appeals) in holding that the aforesaid commercial properties let out by the assessee are outside the purview of section 2(ea)(i) having regard to Explanation (5) thereof. 5. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Representative for the respondent assessee pointed out that the CWT(Appeals) has relied upon the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing used for commercial activities, are let out by the assessee. According to the Revenue, the said properties are not being used by the assessee for the purposes of his own business. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Satvinder Singh (supra) has observed that in order to cover a case under Explanation (5) below section 2(ea)(i), it is not necessary that the property in the nature of commercial establishment or complex should be occupied by the assessee for the purposes of business or profession carried on by him as was the case in Explanation (3) which excludes any house occupied by the assessee for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him. For the purposes of applying Explanation (5) to section 2(ea) the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
