TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is also a subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal. Thus the findings made by the Ld. CIT(A) in penalty proceedings has attained finality. Addition made on the land at Sakarda and land at Kapurai are not an asset within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore the additions made by the A.O. are hereby deleted. Thus the grounds raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. - WTA No. 1/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2022 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta , Accountant Member And And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar , Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri N. M. Darji , A. R. For the Respondent : Shri Atul Pandey , Sr. D. R . ORDER PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-5, as against the Assessment order passed under section 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 53 days in filing the above appeal. The appeal is filed on 05.06.2020. This period falls under COVID-Pandemic s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer rejected the above claim and held that the assessee has declared it as an investment in the balance sheet and has not carried out any business activities, so as to prove that the property as a commercial establishment. Therefore the same is added as the asset for the purpose of Wealth Tax. Thus the Assessing Officer determined the net wealth taxable as Rs. 72,41,368/- and demanded Wealth Tax of Rs. 95,310/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) called for objection and remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter admitted the additional evidences as per sub-rule (2) of rule 5A of Wealth Tax Rule. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee has filed Form No. 8A wherein it is mentioned that the land at Sakarda is for agricultural purpose but did not file any evidence to show the land was actually used for agricultural purposes and therefore confirmed the additons. 3.1. Regarding land at Kapurai, the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that it as an agricultural land. Thus both the land are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CWT(A) vide his order dated 20/07/2020 relying on the facts referred in (a) above holding that the asset are not chargeable to Wealth Tax. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse taken us through the appellate order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case in the Income Tax Proceedings in ITA No. 3021/Ahd/2011 and Others dated 17/08/2017 wherein it is held as follows: 12. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. As far as second fold of grievance is concerned, i.e. whether the profit earned by the assessee on sale of these two pieces of land is to be assessed as capital gain or business income, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not address much arguments on this issue, and accepted that, if it is assessed as business income, the assessees have no objection. Therefore, this fold of grievance is rejected. 5.1. The Ld. Counsel further submitted as follows: 1) Grounds of appeal no 1 regarding addition of the value of the land at sakarda worth Rs. 27,39,000/- As per facts available on records it is submitted that (1) Rs. 27,39,000/- represents advance paid for agriculture land. Land c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de remains the advance. The LD AO is not justified to make the addition of RS.3,11,175/- as the value of land at Kapurai as chargeable to wealth tax. Reliance is placed on decision of the ITAT Jaipur bench. In the case of Niranjanlal Data Alawar VS Department of Income tax bearing WTA No. 4/JP/2012 dated 18/07/2014 as para supra. 5.2. The Ld. A.R. also placed on record, the findings of the CIT(A) in his Appellate order dated 20.07.2020 in the penalty proceedings for the same Assessment Year 2009-10 in assessee s own case, wherein levy of penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax have been deleted as follows: 4.2 Property at Sakarda:- The appellant has drawn my attention to the order of the A.O. , CIT(A) as well as Hon'ble ITAT w.r.t. quantum addition u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09 whereas it has been held that the appellant was engaged in purchasing and selling of right in the property and one of such property was property at Sakarda. The appellant had declared capital gain on such activity but the department as well as Tribunal has held that his activity comes under the purview of business activity being adventure in nature. This shows that the property at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
