2003 (11) TMI 67 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth-tax within the meaning of section 40(3) (vi) of the Finance Act 1983? The question is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the building Asoka Plaza is not to be treated as plant of the applicant s business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicant s memorandum of association of the company but is to be treated as building chargeable to wealth-tax in the hands of the applicant under the provisions of section 40 of the Finance Act 1983? - The question is answered in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 regarding the taxability of property let out by the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Determination of whether a building used for real estate business purposes is to be treated as 'plant' or 'building' chargeable to wealth-tax under the provisions of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Madras addressed the first issue concerning the interpretation of section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. The case involved conflicting views by different Tribunals on whether a property let out by the assessee was subject to wealth-tax. The court examined the legislative intent behind the introduction of section 40, emphasizing that the levy of wealth-tax on closely held companies was aimed at preventing tax avoidance. The court rejected the argument that commercial assets were exempt from wealth-tax, stating that section 40(3) encompasses various assets, including commercial properties like buildings. The court cited precedents to support the inclusion of business assets under wealth-tax provisions, concluding that the commercial complex owned by the assessee was liable to be taxed under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983.

2. The second issue revolved around whether a building used for real estate business purposes should be considered as 'plant' or 'building' for wealth-tax purposes. The court analyzed the exclusionary clause in section 40(3)(vi), which lists specific assets exempt from wealth-tax, such as factories, godowns, warehouses, hotels, or offices used for business purposes. The court clarified that for an asset to be excluded from wealth-tax, it must fall within the categories specified in the exclusionary clause. In this case, the commercial complex owned by the assessee did not meet the criteria for exemption under section 40(3)(vi) as it did not qualify as a factory, godown, warehouse, hotel, or office used for business purposes. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, ruling that the commercial complex was subject to wealth-tax under the Finance Act, 1983.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras answered the questions in Tax Case No. 83 of 1998 and Tax Case No. 230 of 1998 in favor of the Revenue, holding that the property let out by the assessee and the building used for real estate business purposes were liable to wealth-tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1983. The court provided a detailed analysis of the legislative intent behind section 40 and the specific criteria for determining the taxability of assets, emphasizing the comprehensive scope of wealth-tax provisions applicable to closely held companies.