TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding before Hon ble High Court of Madras. Residential property at Mc Nichols Road, the claim of assessee that said property was used for own residence and consequently outside the purview of definition of asset as defined u/s.2(ea) of the Act. Although, the assessee claims that said property was used for own residence, but no evidence has been placed before the authorities or even before us to prove that said property was used for own residence. No doubt, in case the property is used for own residence then the same is exempt u/s.5(1)(vi) of the Act. But, it is for the assessee to prove with necessary evidence that said asset is used for own residence. In this case, the assessee has not placed any evidence on record to justify his stand. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be reexamined by the AO in light of claim of the assessee that said property is used for own residence. Appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purpose. - WTA Nos. 49 & 50 / CHNY / 2018 WTA Nos. 51 & 52 / CHNY / 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2021 - SHRI JUSTICE P. P. BHATT , PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellants by : Shri N. Arjun Raj , CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings in this regard in para 9 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification 8. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the inclusion of the value of other silver and jewellery items as part of the assessable net wealth without assigning proper reasons and justification. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the inclusion of the value of such items was bad in law and alternative ought to have appreciated that the value assigned for inclusion in the computation of net wealth was wrong on various facets. 10. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the claim of tax exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the rejection of the said claim by the Assessing Officer was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and in any event ought to have appreciated that the valuation of the house property for inclusion of such value in the computation of net wealth was wrong on various facets. 11. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e residential property at Mc Nichols Road and diamonds receivable from Mehta Diamond Trust because both assets have not been given to the assessee as per the terms of MOU cum Deed of family settlement. The AO, however was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to him, since the assessee has entitled to receive various assets including residential property and diamonds on execution of the MOU and therefore the same needs to be included in taxable wealth and accordingly brought to tax residential property at Mc Nichols Road and value of 200 Cts diamond amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/- 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CWT(A). Before the CWT(A), the assessee has challenged inclusion of residential property at Mc Nichols Road on the ground that said property was used for the purpose of residence and hence the same is exempted u/s.5(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee has also challenged valuation adopted by the AO on the ground that the AO ought to have followed the method of valuation prescribed under Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act, whereas he has arrived at the value on the basis of market value which is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the above arguments, even assuming for the moment the asset is liable to be taxed, but fact remains that the residential property at Mc Nichols Road is used for own residence and hence the same is exempted u/s.5(1)(vi) of the Act and consequently cannot be included in taxable wealth. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CWT(A) submitted that it is a matter on record that the assessee is a party to MOU and has per said MOU the assets have been distributed among its family members and hence there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that he is not owner of the assets as on the date of valuation, because said MOU is challenged before the Hon ble Madras High Court. The ld.DR further submitted that what is important to bring a particular asset to tax is whether the assessee is owner of said asset or not and said asset comes within the definition of asset as defined u/s.2(ea) of the Act. Since the assessee become owner of the asset by virtue of settlement deed, he cannot claim that he is not owner of said asset merely because the MOU is challenged before the court. The ld.DR further submitted that the assessee has failed to file any evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of wealth, then the same cannot be included in the value of taxable wealth for taxation. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that although assets have been distributed among the family members in pursuant to MOU cum Deed of family settlement, but the contention of the assessee before the Hon ble High Court is that he did not receive said assets. We, therefore, considering facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that AO as well as CWT(A) were erred in assessing the value of residential house property and diamonds for taxation for the impugned assessment years without taking into account the dispute pending before Hon ble High Court of Madras. 8. As regards residential property at Mc Nichols Road, the claim of assessee that said property was used for own residence and consequently outside the purview of definition of asset as defined u/s.2(ea) of the Act. Although, the assessee claims that said property was used for own residence, but no evidence has been placed before the authorities or even before us to prove that said property was used for own residence. No doubt, in case the property is used for own residence then the same is exempt u/s.5(1)(vi) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
