2015 (11) TMI 1115 - AT - Wealth-tax

Exemption u/s. 2(ea) of the WT Act - whether the Learned CITA is justified in deleting the value of factory shed and godown of 8, 64, 76, 000/- for wealth tax purposes - Held that - assessee had derived rental income by letting out its godown cum factory shed to M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd for more than 300 days in the previous year. Any property used for residential or commercial purposes would apparently come under the definition of assets as defined in section 2(ea) of the Act subject to some exclusions contemplated therein. The 4th exclusion provides that if the residential property is let out for a minimum period of 300 days in a year then it is outside the ambit of taxable asset for the purpose of wealth tax. It is undisputed and indisputable that the subject mentioned property is a commercial property and not a residential property. Hence we hold that the assessee s case does not fall under the exclusion Clause No. 4 of section 2(ea)(1) of the Act. - tenant M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd also had utilized the property for their commercial purposes. We hold that even if the property is utilized for commercial purposes by the tenant still it is outside the ambit of wealth tax and assessee would automatically fall under the exclusion Clause No. 5 of section 2(ea)(1) of the Act. We find that this issue is covered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of ACWT vs Merino Exports P Ltd in 2012 (9) TMI 948 - ITAT KOLKATA - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of deleting the value of factory shed and godown for wealth tax purposes.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata centered around the deletion of the value of a factory shed and godown for wealth tax purposes. The dispute arose from the order of the Learned CIT(A) regarding the assessment framed by the Learned AO under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The primary contention was whether the property, let out to M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd for commercial purposes, should be considered a taxable asset. The assessee argued that the property fell under exemptions provided in section 2(ea) of the Act due to being let out for more than 300 days in the previous year. The Inspector's report confirmed the commercial nature of the property, used as a storehouse by the tenant. The Learned CITA deleted the addition towards net maintainable rent, citing exemptions under sections 2(ea)(1)(4) and 2(ea)(1)(5) of the Act. The revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed on the grounds of maintaining the net maintainable rent.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions in detail. It noted that any property used for residential or commercial purposes would generally be considered an asset under section 2(ea) of the Act, with certain exclusions. The Tribunal found that the property in question was commercial and not residential, thus not falling under the exclusion clause of section 2(ea)(1)(4). Moreover, considering the property's industrial area and commercial use by the tenant, it was held to be exempt under section 2(ea)(1)(5). The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support its conclusion, emphasizing that the assessee's own use of the property was not a prerequisite for exemption under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to delete the value of the factory shed and godown for wealth tax purposes. The judgment highlighted the commercial nature of the property, its use by the tenant for commercial activities, and the applicability of exemptions under the relevant sections of the Wealth Tax Act. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents, ultimately upholding the deletion of the property's value for wealth tax assessment.