9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the same is bad in law and the decision of Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) - 11, Hyderabad needs to be reversed. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) -11, Hyderabad has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 7,20,73,072/- made by the Ld. AO by treating the staff quarters as taxable wealth under Sec 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-11, erred in ignoring the plea of the appellant that the staff quarters was exempted specifically from the definition of taxable wealth under Sec 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) - 1 1, Hyderabad has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,56,31,975/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... response to notice u/s 7 of the WTA. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has disclosed only value of vehicles as on valuation date i.e., 31.3.2011 to the tune of Rs.2,62,39,301/-. In absence of any explanation filed by the assessee regarding the difference in the value of the vehicles and whether the same is exempt from WTA, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.39,11,288/-. 3. The Assessing Officer further noted from the fixed assets schedule that the assessee has disclosed the closing WDV of the buildings (staff quarters) at Rs.7,20,73,072/- and closing WDV of the land at Rs.16,82,84,225/-. The explanation of the assessee that the explanation (1) to sub-section (i) to sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he details such as extent of land used for building and the vacant land. According to him, it is not a case where every inch of the land is used for construction of factory building. In absence of any details/bifurcation of land as vacant land/buildings, the land as mentioned in the depreciation schedule annexed to the balance sheet was brought to wealth tax. He noted that as per the fixed asset schedule, an amount of Rs.15,58,78,645/- was shown as addition during the year ending on 31.3.2011. He, therefore, did not treat the same as wealth since the asset is not used by the assessee for more than 2 years from the date of its acquisition as on 31.3.2011. He, therefore, increased the opening WDV by 25% and arrived at Rs.1,56,31,975/- and bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities, additional evidences could not be submitted before the learned CWT (A) also. He accordingly submitted that these additional evidences should be admitted and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the admission of the additional evidence and heavily relied on the order of the learned CWT (A). 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CWT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.7,20,73,072/- being the value of the buildings (staff quarters) and an amount of Rs.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
