TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o interfere with the lower appellate finding under challenge. We accordingly conclude that the CWT(A) has rightly taken assessee’s Delhi rented property to be out of the purview of the Wealth Tax provisions thereby directing the Assessing Officer to claim section 5(vi) relief qua Baroda property. - WTA Nos. 12 & 13/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2016 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mrs. Somugyan Pal, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri S.N. Divetia ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue s appeals for assessment years 2004-05 2005-06, arise from two separate orders of the CWT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad both dated 22nd April, 2013 passed in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer took up consequential proceedings of the assessee on a farm house property at Ahmedabad as well as Baroda. He is also a tenant in a rented premises at Delhi having his residential address at no.26, Golf Link, 1st Floor, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 24.12.2009 treated this Delhi residential house as exempt to hold that the one in Baroda is not being used either for business or residential purpose so as to be covered by exempted category under the Act. He accordingly impugned the same in the assessee s taxable wealth thereby adding value therefore coming to ₹ 32,00,000/-. 5. The assessee preferred appeal. He inter alia argued that he was only a tenant in the Delhi house regularly paying rent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. treated it as exempted as per para 4.1 of the W.T. order, But, the property is not owned by appellant and the appellant through lease agreement reside/occupy this property as tenant and pays rent. This fact is duly evidenced by the claim of such rent as appellant's expenses in his I.T. Return. It is therefore I am inclined to accept that said property is not an asset taxable u/s 5(ea) of wealth tax Act, I am also inclined to accept that since this is a tenanted property, this exemption so granted by A.O. u/s 5(vi) of the W.T. Act is not proper and led to a mistake for asstt. of wealth. As against this back drop, the appellant own two property i.e. one at Ahmedabad and another at Baroda for which appellant as per section 5(vi) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential house taken on rent could be assessed as net wealth in the hands of a tenant. We reiterate that the assessee has already placed on record sufficient evidence proving regular rent payments already allowed as expenditure in income tax assessments. We do not find any reason to interfere with the lower appellate finding under challenge. We accordingly conclude that the CWT(A) has rightly taken assessee s Delhi rented property to be out of the purview of the Wealth Tax provisions thereby directing the Assessing Officer to claim section 5(vi) relief qua Baroda property. The Revenue s sole substantive ground fails. It s appeal WTA No.12/Ahd/2013 is rejected. 7. Same order to follow in WTA No.13/Ahd/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
