2012 (8) TMI 532 - HC - Wealth-tax

Whether property leased out is not assessable to wealth-tax and excludible from the operation of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 - as per section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, there is an additional requirement that the building should be used by the assessee as godown or warehouse for the purpose of its business Held that - Let out assets are used by the assessee in its leasing business. If the leased out assets such as, godown, warehouse, hospital or other assets, come within the specified assets in section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, certainly the assessee is entitled to the exemption, because the same is used in leasing business - assessee has leased out the property as a hotel and the lessee also used the same property as a hotel and there is no dispute and, therefore, the assessee comes within the specified assets as contemplated under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption from the Wealth-tax Act - in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the property leased out by the assessee is assessable to wealth-tax and excludible from the operation of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983?
2. Whether the property let out by the assessee was used in the assessee's business and thus excludible from the operation of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983?

Analysis:
1. The case involved tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax-I against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the exemption of a property from wealth-tax under section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The assessee, a company, had leased out a property and claimed exemption from wealth-tax. The Wealth-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the exemption based on precedents and the company's main object of letting out properties. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the property's use by the lessee for business does not entitle the assessee to exemption.

2. The Revenue contended that the property was not used by the assessee as a hotel but merely leased out, thus not qualifying for exemption. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that the property was leased out as a hotel, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. The Tribunal considered the company's main object of leasing properties and relevant case laws to support the assessee's claim for exemption. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by a Full Bench judgment that clarified the scope of interpretation of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.

3. The Full Bench judgment highlighted that if a leasing company lets out specific assets like a factory, building, or warehouse, it is entitled to relief from wealth-tax. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision regarding investment allowance on plant and machinery let out to third parties. The assessee's main object of leasing properties aligned with the exclusionary clause under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, supporting their entitlement to exemption. The Tribunal's decision was deemed valid, as the leased property fell within the specified assets for exemption.

4. Considering the principles from the Full Bench judgment and the company's objectives, the court concluded that the property leased out as a hotel met the criteria for exemption under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. Both appellate authorities correctly allowed the assessee's claim for exemption, in line with legal precedents and the company's business activities. The court dismissed the tax case appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee and upholding the exemption from wealth-tax based on valid grounds and legal interpretations.