TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per clause (vi) of sec. 2(ea) cash in hand in excess of ₹ 50,000/- of individuals and HUFs and in the case of other persons any amount not recorded in the books of account are to be treated as asset for the purpose of wealth tax. As per Chelliah Committee report, Finance Act, 1992 and CBDT Circular, it was made clear that only non-productive assets are to be brought under the ambit of Wealth Tax whereas the productive assets are to be excluded from it. There is hardly any scope to account for non-productive cash in the account of the business being carried out as proprietor. The assessee's issue is covered against assessee by the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX VERSUS SMT. KR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-44/2008-09 dated 22.01.2010. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata u/s. 17 r.w.s. 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 19.12.2008. 2. The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to jurisdiction assumed by Assessing Officer u/s. 17 of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground No.1: 1)For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 existed and/or has been complied with and/or fulfilled on the part of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta 44, Kolkata in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary concern to the net wealth of the appellant without considering the debt owed on such amount and his purported finding on that behalf is wholly capricious, unreasonable and perverse. 4. FOR THAT the impugned action of the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) XXX, Kolkata in upholding the impugned addition to the tune of ₹ 27,93,420/- made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata to the net wealth of the appellant on the alleged premise of failure to produce evidence is wholly illogical, improper and illegal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer noticed that there is substantial cash in hand as per Balance Sheet of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that as per Chelliah Committee report, speech of Hon ble Finance Minister during budget session, Finance Act, 1992 and CBDT Circular, it was made clear that only non-productive assets are to be brought under the ambit of Wealth Tax whereas the productive assets are to be excluded from it. But, we are of the view that this issue is covered against assessee and in favour of revenue by the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. R. Ushasree (2010) 229 CTR 52 (Ker), wherein it is observed as under: Though not relevant, we are constrained to observe that there is nothing that stops the assessee from utilizing the cash in hand which may be business asset on the valuation date for any non-productive purpose on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inguishable. But we are of the view that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. K. R. Ushasree (supra) and respectfully following the same we dismiss this issue of appeal of the assessee. But only alternative contention made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Assessing Officer has not verified the generation of cash in hand which is out of sales made approximately ₹ 12,36,056/- and qua that cash in hand should be treated for business purposes. In term of the above argument, we are with the assessee and incase this cash in hand of ₹ 12,36,056/- is generated out of cash sales , it can be stated that this is out of business asset and this business asset is not covered by provision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
