TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was having a plot measuring 260.10 sqm allotted by DDA on 05.12.2002 situated at plot no. 6 Mandakini Residential Scheme, Alaknanda, New Delhi. The said plot was under construction for the years under consideration as construction had been done during the year 2010. Therefore, the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to case of CIT Vs Neena Jain [2010 (2) TMI 635 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ]. We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - WTA No. 8/Del/2012, WTA No. 9/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsisting of a residential property no. 392, Mandakini Enclave, one DDA Plot No. 6, Mandakini Residential Scheme, New Delhi measuring 260.10 Sq. meters, a motor car, cash in hand and plant and machinery, against which he had claimed debts amounting to ₹ 56,21,464/- and ₹ 9,80,117/-. The WTO pointed out that the property no. 392, Mandakini Enclave, New Delhi valued at ₹ 3,22,000/- was used by the assessee for self residence and the plot no. 6, Mandakini Residential Scheme had been valued at ₹ 99,69,239/- and the cost of construction on the said plot up to the date of valuation had been declared at ₹ 29,09,654/-. The WTO was of the view that the plot no. 6, Mandakini Residential Scheme valued at ₹ 1,28,78,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of CIT Vs Neena Jain reported at 330 ITR 157. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the WTO to allow the exemption as per Section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act by observing as under: I have carefully considered the facts of the case. Plot No. 6, Mandakini Residential Scheme, Alaknanda, New Delhi was still under construction during the relevant period. The appellant has submitted copies of primary documents in support of its claim i.e. the assessment order of the M.C.D passed by Deputy Assessor Collector CNZ dated 26.02.2011 for the said property, wherein it is clearly stated that plot measuring 260.10 sqm. was allotted by DDA to the taxpayer on 05.12.2002 over which construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted the order of the WTO and reiterated the observations made in the wealth tax assessment order dated 31.12.2010. It was further stated that the assessee was having two houses, therefore, the WTO rightly made the addition of one house. It was further stated that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. 9. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and strongly supported the impugned order. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) categorically stated that the assessee was having a plot no. 6 in Mandakini Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see neither fell within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of urban land as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Act. The perusal of the scheme of the Act posits that it was not always that any building or land appurtenant thereto was straightaway liable to wealth tax. There was an exclusion clause contained in Explanation 1(b) of the Act, in regard to urban land as well. In that eventuality, the burden of proof was on the Revenue and the adjudicating authority was required to record a categorical finding that the building of the assessee was actually exigible to wealth-tax which was lacking in the case of the assessee. Thus the Tribunal was justified and correctly negative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
