2016 (7) TMI 659 - AT - Wealth-tax

Wealth tax assessment on the properties owned by the assessee - as assessee s contention that the properties cannot be considered to be an asset within the meaning of term asset as wealth defined under Wealth Tax Act - Held that - We find that the ld.CWT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee was receiving rent from the profits which has been considered by WTO as wealth and the properties were covered under Exception four Section 2(ea)(i)(4) & (5) of the Act. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of ld.CWT(A). As far as Revenue s ground with respect to admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A is concerned, we find that Revenue could not point out the documents which have been considered by ld.CWT(A) and were in the nature of additional evidences. In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to interfere with the order of ld.CWT(A) and thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of wealth tax based on property ownership.
2. Deletion of additions made by the Wealth Tax Officer.
3. Admission of additional evidence without proper verification.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of wealth tax based on property ownership
The case involved an individual engaged in various businesses who filed an income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed land property owned by the individual, leading to the initiation of wealth tax proceedings. The AO issued a notice under section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The individual filed a return of wealth, but the AO determined the total assessable wealth at a higher amount. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) subsequently deleted certain additions made by the Wealth Tax Officer, leading to an appeal by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 2: Deletion of additions made by the Wealth Tax Officer
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) deleted several additions made by the Wealth Tax Officer. These included additions related to residential and commercial properties owned by the individual. The Commissioner cited specific exceptions under the Wealth Tax Act to justify the deletion of these additions. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner, noting that the properties in question were covered by exceptions and could not be considered taxable wealth. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge the Commissioner's findings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Admission of additional evidence without proper verification
One of the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal was related to the admission of additional evidence by the Commissioner without proper verification and seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962. However, the Revenue could not identify the specific documents considered as additional evidence by the Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, as the Revenue did not substantiate its claim regarding the admission of additional evidence.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) to delete certain additions made by the Wealth Tax Officer based on the specific exceptions provided under the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the Commissioner's findings, leading to the rejection of the appeal.