9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 against the orders of assessments framed u/s 16(3)/17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). WTA No.19/Kol/2014 A.Y 2002-03 (by the assessee) 2. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee informed the bench that he is not pressing this appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No.19/Kol/2014 filed for the assessment year 2002-03 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The issues involved in these two appeals (WTA Nos. 20 & 21/Kol/2014 A.Ys .2003-04 & 2004-05 ) are identical in nature. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. WTA No.20/Kol/2014 A.Y 2003-04 4. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther argued that the ld.AO has also stated that the property has been let out for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the assessee is also entitled for exemption u/s. 2(ea)(i)(5) of the WT Act. 7. We have heard the ld. AR. We find that the ld. Sr.DR was not present in the bench on the date of hearing and also did not seek any adjournment for his absence. In view of this, we proceeded to dispose off these appeals after hearing the ld.AR of the assessee and considering the material available on record. We find from the copy of lease deed that the property in question has been let out on rent to M/s. Eli Lily & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd w.e.f 1-6-2002, which is more than 300 days in a year. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled for exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for a minimum period of three hundred days and so either covered under the provisions of section 2(ea)(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 or under section 2(ea)(5) of the said Act". 10. We have heard the ld.AR and perused the material available on record. We find lot of force in the argument of the ld.AR of the assessee that section 2(ea)(i)(4) of the Act does not contemplate the usage of residential property only for residential purpose. We find that this section only says the residential property that has been let out for a minimum period of three hundred days in a previous year is eligible for exemption. We also find lot of force in the arguments of the ld.AR that the ld.AO having concluded that the subject mentioned property loses its s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
