TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace for the employees of the assessee-Company. It is the duty of the assessee to prove the impugned landed property is a business asset when the assessee claimed it is not liable for wealth tax. On the other hand, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer has to prove it which is not correct. We vacate this finding of the CIT(A). Since the assessee has filed affidavit which was not made available to the Assessing Officer on earlier occasion, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary enquiries regarding possibility of using the impugned land as parking space for the employees of the assessee and if the land is used as parking space for the employees of the assessee-Company, then the Assessing Officer should treat the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n sec. 2(ea)(i) and not to urban land covered in section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the exceptions provided in respect of 'Urban Land' such as land classified as agricultural land, land on which construction of a building is not permissible, land held for industrial purpose for 2 years or more or land held as, stock-in-trade for 10 years etc do not cover the assessee's claim regarding use as parking space and ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is prayed that the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kochi be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 6. For these and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als to substantiate their claim. It was also found that out of the total extent of land, assessee had sold 23.143 cents of land in March 2012 for ₹ 74,96,000/-(₹ 3,23,900/- per cent). Therefore, the Assessing Officer took the market value of the land on the basis of this sale by reducing 10% in reverse order. As such, the value of land for the year worked out to ₹ 2,70,000/- per cent for this year. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer took the aggregate value of immovable property (land) owned by the assessee at ₹ 1,86,96,000/-(270000x69.245). 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the company purchased 69.245 cents of land at Palarivattom, Edapally village of Cochin Corporation during 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating as follows: It is respectfully submitted that the land was not vacant urban land and it had been being used as Parking Space for Employees of the Company during the impugned periods. The main business of the Company is in the field of Software Export and about 400 employees are working the company during various shifts of day and night. many employees of the Company are coming from far away places from Kochi and used to return their home weekly, biweekly or at periodic intervals and not on a day to day basis. Since most of the employees reach the Office of the Company by vehicles, the Parking of their vehicles could not be kept at the premises of the Company due lack of space. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
