TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sents assets liable for levy of wealth tax. AR apart from making general submissions did not bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we find no merits in the submissions of the learned AR. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta v/s DCIT, [ 2019 (2) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI] granted substantial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal, the total taxable income of Rs.299,77,95,160 was reduced to Rs.32,54,186, which has been adopted by the learned CIT(A) for computation of taxable wealth in the present case. Further, since from the very first Wealth Tax assessment order dated 28/03/1995, passed by the WTO under section 16(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee is considered for computation of gross wealth, we find no merits in the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal Addition on account of appreciation in the value of shareholding - As evident that the coordinate bench in late Shri Harshad S Mehta v/s DCIT, [ 2019 (2) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI] observed that desp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of interest u/s 17B - This issue by following the decision of its predecessor in earlier rounds of litigation. We find that the interest u/s 17B of the Act is to be charged for the period commencing from the due date of filing the return till the date of filing the return or till the date of assessment, whichever is earlier. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on this issue and direct the AO to levy interest u/s17B of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a result, ground raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of interest under section 31 - We find that in CIT v/s Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [ 2011 (11) TMI 118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that where pursuant to remand, the AO passed a fresh assessment order, on failure of the assessee to pay the demand within the prescribed time the interest u/s 220 (2) is to be levied from the date of fresh demand. Since, provisions of section 220(2) are pari materia to section 31 of the Act, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised in Revenue's appeal is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Net wealth = Rs.505,72,58,517 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee. Being aggrieved, both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 5. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of Net accretion to the assets on the basis of the additions made under the income tax proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of on account of appreciation in the value of assets at Rs. 32,54,188/- on the basis of the addition made under the Income tax Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of appreciation in the value of shareholding at Rs. 396,18,86,766/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming addition on account of appreciation in the value of Jewellery at Rs. 46,080/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of value of stock exchange membership card at Rs. 62,50,000/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was in possession of assets representing her wealth not disclosed for the purpose of the Act. Since no return of Wealth was filed by the assessee, a notice under section 16(4) of the Act was issued on 09/01/1993, calling upon the assessee to file the return of income. In response thereto, the assessee filed the return of income on 29/10/1993, declaring a total wealth of Rs.45,52,100. Vide order dated 28/03/1995 passed under section 16(3) of the Act, the WTO computed the gross wealth of the assessee by adding net wealth as on 31/03/1991, total income assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and appreciation in value of assets, after reducing the personal expenses. The WTO also made the addition on account of appreciation in the value of jewellery and the value of stock exchange membership card and accordingly, computed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs.796,80,47,984. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 13/12/2007, in assessee s appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [ learned CWT(A) ], remitted the Wealth Tax assessment to the WTO for de novo adjudication, since the Income Tax assessment was also set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that most of the details of the transactions were maintained by the assessee on a number of computers, which were seized, and upon the analysis of the seized data, it was found that complete share market transactions were not available therein. Therefore, it was held that complete books of account could not be generated from the seized data as well. Thus, the original income tax assessment was also completed on the basis of the material available in the seized computer data, other records, and information gathered from various sources. Further, it was held that the income of the assessee is represented by accounted and unaccounted investment in shares, jewellery, cash, unexplained money, and other unexplained assets, which in any case represents assets liable for levy of wealth tax. The learned AR apart from making general submissions did not bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we find no merits in the submissions of the learned AR. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 4204/Mum/2017, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had not produced her books of accounts and the assessee has not filed her return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Department collected the information from various sources, such as RBI, Custodian, companies, share market client/brokers, Bombay Stock Exchange. From the perusal of the assessment order dated 21/03/1995, passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is evident that all the information so collected was fed into the computer and the same was examined and analysed. As per the aforesaid assessment order, the printouts of the data were provided to the assessee and she was asked to give details/explanations on the same. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that she should be provided with all the original documents collected from various sources before the reply can be furnished. On the basis of the information available from the sources as mentioned above, the closing stock determined as on 31/03/1991 was taken as opening stock of the assessee for the year under consideration and a scrip-wise trading account was prepared. Based on the aforesaid information, the AO calculated the details of purchases and sale of shares affected by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation has been received even though the assessee made several request for the same before the revenue authorities. We have specifically directed the D.R. to provided all these information to the assessee but no such information was provided and ultimately revenue simply produced computerized compilation along with gunny bags but could not brought any cogent material or evidence before us supporting the source of the information on the basis of which the details of purchases and sales are compiled with. The assessing officer, based on the purchase and sale data so gathered for the period 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992, determined stock held by the assessee as on 31.03.1992. Subsequently, the AO computed stock as on 08.06.1992 by adjusting the purchases and/ or sales transactions undertaken during the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06.1992, details of which were also obtained from these sources as mentioned above but without bringing any supporting evidence before us. The AO also computed physical stock of the assessee as on 08.06.1992 comprising of: - a) registered holdings with the companies, b) other Benami shares declared by the assessee and c) unregistered shares held by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that natural justice demands that the assessee must be provided with the copies of all the relevant material, information and evidence collected by the AO at the back of the assessee for his rebuttal. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (ITA No.538/M/2012), in which case also the bench has directed the AO to provide copies of all the information on the basis of which additions were made in the hand of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal are as under:- (ii) Wherever the additions are proposed on the basis of seized material or materials collected from third parties, the copies thereof need to be provided to the assessee. If requested for, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. (iii) Additions should not be repeated on the basis of the presumptions and inferences. Additions must be made only on the basis of materials and evidences available on record. (iv) (i) The AO has to accept the request of the assessee for obtaining materials from the Custodian, Banks and Companies etc. For that matter, wherever necessary, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Page no.1, specifies the name of the persons who shall take inspection. No further details are provided. Page nos.2 and 3 are Mahzernama and not assessee s letter. 15.40. On going through the annexure, we noticed that these are old correspondence between the assessee and the Department including some information that some document were provided to the assessee. When we confronted Ld DR regarding one item of addition i.e. shares of Reliance Industries of 24,41,679 shares, the learned Departmental Representative was asked what is the basis for putting allegation on the assessee that these shares belongs Shri Ashwin S. Mehta, one of the assessee of assessee group. The learned Addl. CIT Miss. Annu Krishna Agarwal stated that she requires time to find out the evidences regarding this addition. The learned Addl. CIT is also directed to bring evidences regarding each itemized addition on the next date of hearing, so that hearing can be concluded at the earliest, we , therefore adjourned matter to 22.3.2018, on that date also matter adjourned to 27.3.2018 to give full opportunity to the revenue to adduce the evidence to support the addition. On 27.3.2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old all the shares as on 31.3.1992 i.e. in a single day and that too in cash although no such material or evidence being brought on record. If the shortage has been computed as on 8.6.92, how the sales can be assumed to take place as on 31.3.1992 and at the rate prevailing as on that date. There had been search and seizure action against the assessee and assessee group on 28.2.1992, the evidences regarding sales outside the books must have been found if the assessee made any sales. No such evidence being found in respect of unaccounted sales being made as otherwise such evidence would have been produced or brought before us by the revenue. This is the settled law that Suspicion whatever strong it may be, it cannot take the place of actuality. We agree with the submission of the Ld A R that when the purchases have been estimated on average cost, how the sales have been estimated merely on the basis of the rate prevailing as on 31.3.1992 and how these shortage computed as on 8.6.92 will relate to this assessment year 1992-93. Even no material or evidence has been brought before us working out the shortage of shares as on 31.3.1992 so that the addition could be co-related to this asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the hearing, the learned AR submitted that no addition can be made on account of the stock exchange membership card as the same cannot be treated as property for the purpose of the Act. 24. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 25. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that in the assessment order, the WTO adopted the value of card transacted during the financial year 1991-92 in case of different persons as the base, and accordingly, appreciation in the value of the card was determined in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, rejected the submission of the assessee that the date of the sale transactions considered by the WTO is prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee, and subsequent to the search and outbreak of the scam, the value of the stock exchange card would have fallen. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Ashwin C. Shah, 254 ITR(AT) 90 (Mum-Trib.) held that the right of membership of the BSE under the stock exchange card is merely a personal privilege granted to a memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issue and restore the issue to the file of the WTO for de novo adjudication as per law after necessary verification. As a result, ground no.9 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The issue arising in ground No. 10 raised in assessee s appeal, is pertaining to the levy of interest under section 17B of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue by following the decision of its predecessor in earlier rounds of litigation. We find that the interest under section 17B of the Act is to be charged for the period commencing from the due date of filing the return till the date of filing the return or till the date of assessment, whichever is earlier. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on this issue and direct the AO to levy interest under section 17B of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a result, ground No. 10 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 30. The issue arising in ground No. 2, raised in Revenue‟s appeal, is pertaining to the levy of interest under section 31 of the Act. 31. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
