TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). The order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in confirming the additions is well reasoned and justified. We concur with the same. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeals of assessee are dismissed. The assessee has filed certain documents as additional evidences to substantiate that the properties added in the ‘net wealth’ of assessee are not registered in his name. AR has failed to give any plausible reason as to why these documents have not been placed before the AO or Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) when they were in possession of assessee at the time of assessment/hearing before First Appellate authority. Additional evidences could not be admitted merely on the askin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -03 on 30.03.2009 declaring net wealth of ₹ 4,72,800/- and Return of Wealth for the assessment year 2003-04 on 23.03.2009 declaring net wealth of ₹ 16,72,400/-. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of the following assets in the net wealth of the assessee declared for the respective assessment years. Sr. No. Particulars Assessment years 2002-03 2003-04 1. Flat at Shraddha Vihar, Solapur ( Self-occupied) Rs. 2,65,000/- (Value as on 31.03.2002.) Nil Nil 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther directed the Assessing Officer to make addition in respect of flat at Shraddha Vihar, Solapur, as provision of section 5(1)(iv) were omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 01.04.1993 in respect of self- occupied property. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in assessment year 2002-03 are as under: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and law, 1. Under the facts and circumstances of appellant s case and in law, the ld. CWT , Appeals erred in upholding that, following assets are taxable under the provision of Wealth Tax Act as held by ld. AO when all these assets are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2003-04. 4. Shri S.N. Doshi appearing on behalf of assessee submitted that a search action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of assessee on 28.02.2002. In due course block assessment order u/s.158BC was passed. In the course of search, assessee had made declaration of ₹ 4,43,77,020/- and filed block return on income of ₹ 4,54,25,850/-. Notice u/s.17(3) was issued to the assessee under the provision of Wealth Tax Act on 19.03.2009 for impugned assessment years. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of Wealth Tax for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Assessing Officer found that immovable and movable property as mentioned in the grounds of appeal have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest or title in the said properties. Under such circumstances, the properties which have been included by the Assessing Officer/ Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) do not fall under the definition of asset u/s. 2 (ea) of the Act. 4.2 The ld. AR submitted hat it is not a case of Wealth Tax Officer or Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) that these are the assets which are transferred by the assessee otherwise than for adequate consideration. Therefore, the observation of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) to the effect that these are Benami transactions is totally incorrect. Similarly, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in observing that the assets are includible under the provision of section 4 of the Act. Except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of his wife and nephews. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has, therefore, rightly observed that the provision of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 are to be invoked. The ld. DR prayed for confirming the findings of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) and dismissing the appeals of assessee. 5.2 The ld. DR further vehemently opposed the application filed by assessee for admitting additional evidences. The ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained as to why the documents, now placed as additional evidences, would not be furnished before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
