TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s) in question from the preview of net wealth for calculating the wealth tax, since we find that property(s) in question were exempted properties under the provisions of Wealth tax Act and does not attract any Wealth tax as determined by the Authority below. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - WTA No. 5/Chny/2022 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2022 - SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri. Y. Sridhar , CA Respondent by : Shri. A.S. Sumanth , JCIT ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai vide order No. CIT(A), Chennai-3. 10146/2019-20, dated 30.03.2022. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of Wealth Tax Assessment. However, it was evident from the address of the property that the lands are opposite to one another. b. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) failed to consider that the land was used as additional parking facility to another kodikanal land. The property was let out by the appellant with the said parking facility and was receiving rental income from the said property. c. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) failed to consider that as per section 5(vi), one house or part of a house or a plot of land not exceeding 500 sq. meters in area in case of Individual or HUF is exempt from wealth-tax. d. Hence, does not fall under the definition of asset u/s 2(ea) and the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing before us, Ld. AR submits that impugned order is bad in law and CWT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case, since Ld. CWT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the relevant documents in this regard. 6. The Ld. AR further submits that while deciding the issue in respect of the Kodaikanal land the Ld. CWT(A) did not consider the copy of the sale deed of the land and building amounting to Rs. 2,55,66,169 and Rs. 18,45,000/- filed during the course of wealth tax assessment. However, he submitted that it was evident from the addresses of property as stated in the lands are opposite to one another, in fact the other land used as an additional facility of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
