TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the orders listed against their respective names, for the impugned assessment years. Assessees name Assessment year Authorities passing the order Date of order KV P Nagarajan 2011-12 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 27.03.2018 C. Soundeswari 2012-13 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 20.03.2018 KVP Govindaraju 2011-12 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 26.03.2018 KVP Govindaraju 2012-13 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 26.03.2018 K. Prema 2009-10 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 26.03.2018 K. Prema 2010-11 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 26.03.2018 B. Vijaya 2009-10 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 19.03.2018 B. Vijaya 2010-11 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 19.03.2018 B. Vijaya 2011-12 Ld. PCIT, Central-2, Chennai. 19.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years relevant to the impugned assessment years, for the purpose of computing the net wealth. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that ld. PCWT was under a mistaken notion that the net worth computed by ld. WTO was not in accordance with Rule 1 of Schedule III of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, only the net wealth after deducting debts against each of the asset falling within the definition of that term in Section 2(m) of the Act could be reckoned while computing net wealth. Submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that loans availed by the assessees were first credited to their respective bank accounts and later withdrawn in cash. Thus, according to him, the debts were relatable to the cash ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d working of taxable wealth was filed. The details submitted were examined with reference to the details filed in the I.T. returns of income. Copies of VAO certificate, chitta adangal etc., were filed in support of the claim of agi. Lands. Details of debts were also filed''. Crux of the argument of the ld. Authorised Representative before us is that in the Wealth Tax returns filed by the respective assessees, debts which were incurred in relation to the cash was correctly shown and the ld. Assessing Officer had verified such returns with the details filed by the assessee, before accepting the Wealth Tax returns. According to him, it was clear and evident that there was proper enquiry conducted by the ld. WTO. Ld. Authorised Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or claiming the set off of the debts owed in relation to asset 'cash on hand'. When such set off is permissible while computing the value of the specified asset u/s.2(ea)(vi) of the Act, interpretation to section 2(m) is only a change of opinion. In any case, the ld. Assessing Officer, when completing the assessment u/s.16(3) of the Act, has also examined the issue of assessee's claim in respect of set off of the debts owed in relation to asset 'cash on hand'. Thus, the order passed u/s.25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax is clearly on a change of opinion, which is not permissible for the purpose of revision. This being so, the order passed u/s.25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessees against cash balance or received any reply specific to such enquiry. Charging Section 5 of the Act stipulates charge of wealth tax on net wealth. Net wealth is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act which is reproduced hereunder:- ''(m) "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to the said assets; Assets are defined in Section 2(ea) of the Act and clause (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|