TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14, W.T.A. No. 20/Del /2014 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Shri G. D. Agrawal, President And Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Assessee by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Department by : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench These 03 Appeals filed by the Assessee and 01 Appeal filed by the Department are directed against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the same were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of the case of Assessee s WTA No. 9/Del/2014 (AY 2007-08). 2. The following commons grounds raised in all the Appeals of the Assessee, but for the sake of brevity, we are only reproducing the grounds of appeal in respect of assessment year 2007-08 as under:- A. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)-XXV grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi in estimating the market value of the following prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessee to submit the details inter alia in respect of a residential and two commercial properties which were also shown as exempt from the purview of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 by the assessee. The properties shown as taxable by the assessee in its Wealth Tax Return were properties at 111/36, Kulri, Mussorie; Property E-203, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, House No. 602, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi; Property No. 17A/59, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, KN/F-14, Rai Kedar Nath Marg, Anand Parbat Industrial Delhi, and land of one bigha two biswa in village Mehraulli. As the above properties were not found by the AO to accord with the market values of such properties, the assessee was questioned about the basis of the values adopted by it in respect of the above properties. The basis as explained to the AO by the appellant was that the rates were obtained as per enquiries made . However, the assessee failed to produce the evidence of the enquiries made or the basis adopted by like the municipal valuation of such properties or the circle or lands rates as fixed by the Local Commissioner before AO on demand by the latter. The AO was compelled to estimate the values of propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed the net wealth at ₹ 2,68,77,200/- as against the returned wealth of ₹ 76,75,200/-, which does not need any interference on our part. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order, we find that there is a delay of 02 days which was not due to deliberate attempt, therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. We further find that the properties shown as taxable by the assessee in its Wealth Tax Return were properties at 111/36, Kulri, Mussorie; Property E-203, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, House No. 602, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi; Property No. 17A/59, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, KN/F-14, Rai Kedar Nath Marg, Anand Parbat Industrial Delhi, and land of one bigha two biswa in village Mehraulli. As the above properties were not found by the AO to accord with the market values of such properties, the assessee was questioned about the basis of the values adopted by it in respect of the above properties. The basis as explained to the AO by the assessee was that the rates were obtained as per enquiries made . However, the assessee failed to produce the evidence of the enquiries made or the basis adopte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was compelled to estimate the values of properties as indicated above and assessed the net wealth of the assessee at ₹ 2,68,77.200/- as against ₹ 76,75,209/- on estimate basis vide his order dated 31.12.2009. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities, we are of the view that the AO has given full opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before him, but the assessee has not produced any evidence with respect to his contention relating to adoption of value of properties for Wealth Tax purposes and even before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before us. However, keeping in view of the tax effect involved in the case, being old matter and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to not set aside the issue in dispute to the AO and giving liberty to assessee to produce the evidence for its claim. But in the interest of justice, we think it proper to make reasonable estimate as under:- S.No Description of the property Area and year of purchase with the purchase value of the property Value as declared by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. 11. It is not in dispute that the Board s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of ₹ 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT s Instructions. 12. Keeping in view the CBDT Instructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
