TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 17 of the Act was based on the basis of the audit objection. - The Assessing Officer had applied his mind after issuing the notice u/s 17of the Act. Therefore the question of change of opinion does not arise. This aspect was considered by the CWT(Appeals) by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court) upheld the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 17. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the CWT(Appeals). Any house which an assessee may occupy for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him. As per clause (3) if the assessee occupies the house for the purpose of any business or profession it is excluded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the TDS certificate issued by M/s. Borosil Glass Woks Ltd., Mumbai found that the assessee had received rental income of ₹ 9,75,000/- and ₹ 72,00,000/- for the land and building leased out to M/s.Borosil Glass Works Ltd., Mumbai. According to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (('the Act' for short), any building or land appurtenant thereto used for commercial purpose attracts levy of wealth-tax. The value of the building in terms of Schedule III of the Act worked out to ₹ 8,50,00,000/-. The assessee did not file any return of wealth on its own under sec. 14(1) of the Act. As the wealth assessable to tax escaped assessment for the years under consideration, proceedings u/s 17 of the Act were initiated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment years under consideration. Therefore, the CWT(Appeals) held that neither the return was processed under section 16(1) nor any assessment order under section 16(3) was passed and accordingly confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 17 of the Act is not valid and it is based on audit objection. For that he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (119 ITR 996). 5. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was based on the material available on record and not base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the audit objection. We find that the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Indian Eastern Newspaper Society (supra) has no application to the facts of the assessee s case and the assessee has neither filed the return nor it was processed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind after issuing the notice u/s 17of the Act. Therefore the question of change of opinion does not arise. This aspect was considered by the CWT(Appeals) by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500 (SC) upheld the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 17. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the CWT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used by the assessee for the business is not taken into account for computing the wealth of the assessee. The Assessing Officer as per Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act has valued the property at ₹ 8,50,00,000/- and accordingly taxable wealth was determined. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CWT(Appeals). Before the CWT(Appeals) it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee without considering that the asset was exploited by the assessee and income received as business income has been accepted by the Department. The CWT(Appeals) by considering the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Act gave a finding that It is thus clear the land and bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arried on the profession. 12. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The case of the assessee is that it owned land, building and machinery and the same were given to M/s. Borosail Glass Works Ltd., Mumbai and received rental income. The same was shown as business income. According to the assessee the above asset owned by it does not come within the purview of the definition assets in sec. 2(ea) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer the above premises including land, building and machinery comes within the definition of assets in sec. 2(ea) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the relevant section is extracted below : (i) any building or land appurtenant there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
