9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessed by the Dy. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Circle 8(1) New Delhi vide order passed u/s 16(3) read with Sec 17 dated 27-2-2013. The Reassessment made u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act is ab-intio illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Notice issued u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 dated 27-3-2012 is without prior approval of the Concerned Authority Commissioner of Wealth Tax which was obligatory to be obtained before issue of notice u/s 17. The satisfactions recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8 and Commissioner of Income Tax -III New Delhi is for issue of Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act vide Letter dated 23-3-2012 CIT(AO)III Delhi on the basis of Audit Objection for Under Assessment of alleged Income of Rs. 3,48,25,30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction Activity at various sites of the customers where poor Banking and other facilities are available. The keeping of Cash in hand in Assessee's nature of Business is necessary. The rejection of the claim for exemption by CIT(A) on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that the cash in hand is meant for discharging business liabilities is not justified. The outstanding business liabilities are reflected in the Audited Balance Sheet as on 31-03-2006 The addition is unwarranted. 6. That the sustained addition of Rs. 1, 26, 94,152/- in respect of Property B-21 Gitanjali New Delhi on which construction is not permitted by Appropriate Authority due to pending dispute with MCD is not justified. The Assessee purchased 50% s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act, 1957 on 27.03.2012 after recording the reasons and necessary approvals were obtained. The assessee was asked to file WT return, which the assessee filed. The reasons recorded for reopening the case are as under : "It is noticed that the assessee has shown cash in hand amounting to Rs. 58,89,037/- as per schedule 5 of balance sheet. The assessee has also shown immovable property which is liable to Wealth Tax amounting to Rs. 2,99,65,610/- (24,25,610 + 2,75,40,000). In addition to this assessee also has vehicles amounting to Rs. 5,20,658/-. The mistake resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 3,48,25,305/- involving wealth tax of Rs. 5,15,777/- including interest. The escapement of wealth has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed in May, 2006. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the evidence on record produced by the assessee that it was being used for commercial purpose for godown, but he was of the view that it was the residential house. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated it as a part of net taxable wealth and added Rs. 59616008/- in the net wealth of the assessee. In respect of property No. B-11 at Gitanjali, New Delhi, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that initially it was owned by Mr. Purshottam Nath Nanda and Mr. Vishwanath Nanda, who inherited 50% share each of this property from their father late Sh. Prannath Nanda. The 50% share of property owned by Mr. Vishwanath Nanda was fully built and he had further added unauthori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was being used for business purpose. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it was submitted that the case was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding ownership of the property. He also invited our attention to the paper book and the High Court order. Therefore, being a disputed property, it cannot be considered as taxable net wealth. He submitted a paper book containing pages 1-80 along with compilation of case laws. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the case laws cited by the assessee are not applicable to the present case. 6. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire materials available on record and the orders of the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned assessment year. Merely because construction plan was not sanctioned by MCD would not prove that the construction in the property is not permissible or is prohibited. The sanction plan was rejected because of the failure of MCD byelaws. If the assessee or the co-owner would have removed the encroachment or illegal construction of the property, the plan would have been sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that construction is not permitted in the impugned plot is not tenable and rejected. No any evidence is placed before us to substantiate that the said property was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has rightly given r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
