TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment records’. Hence all the details that were duly appreciated by the ld CITA were already part of income tax assessment records. We also find that the revenue had disputed only Rule 46A violation and had not disputed the fact and finding of ld CITA on the ground that the subject mentioned warehouses fall within the exclusion clause of definition of assets u/s 2(ea) of the Act. The issue is already covered by the decision of this tribunal referred to supra. In these facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules as alleged by the revenue in its grounds of appeal. Hence we hold that the warehouses owned by the assessee squarely falls within the exclusion clause of section 2(ea) of the Act and accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit and loss account for the year ended 31.3.2011 , the assessee credited ₹ 2,22,34,670/- as Warehouse Rent . The ld AO observed that the warehouse does not come under the term business establishment or within the definition of commercial complex and therefore it is chargeable to wealth tax u/s 2(ea) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld AO applied the rent capitalization method in accordance with the provision of Part B of Schedule III of Wealth tax Act and determined the value of warehouse at ₹ 23,62,43,375/- and added the same to the net wealth of the assessee company. The ld AO observed that no evidence was submitted by the assessee to establish that the said premises were used for commercial activities. 4. Before the ld C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter-relating parts in contrast to a single commercial establishment. In the case of commercial establishment, it is not necessary that it should be composed of or made of inter-related parts. In the case of a property in the nature of commercial establishment, it is not necessary that it should be also in the nature of commercial complex. 4.1. The assessee also argued that the warehouses were built by it and were registered in its name. The said warehouses were used for the commercial purpose and is having commercial area, thus, the same are excluded, from the definition of assets u/s 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Act. It submitted that the warehouse is located at Jangalpur, Jalan Complex, NH 6, Howrah. The assessee has obtained trade registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ground that the ld CITA had granted relief to the assessee by admitting additional evidences in the form of rent agreements thereby violating the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, we find that there is no additional document or evidence filed by the assessee before the ld CITA. All the documents filed by the assessee more particularly the rent agreements and the name of the tenants occupying the warehouses were already part of income tax assessment records and that the income tax assessment for the very same assessment year i.e Asst Year 2011-12 was completed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 13.3.2014 . Moreover, we find that the ld AO himself in the first para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
