2016 (8) TMI 131 - HC - Wealth-tax

Asset within the meaning of Section 2-E(a) of the Wealth Tax Act - interpreting the phrase Commercial Establishment or Complexes - Held that - considering the decision of this Court in the case of Vasumatiben Chhaganlal Virani (2013 (9) TMI 957 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ), the question, which is raised in the present appeals is required to be the assessee. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of Vasumatiben Chhaganlal Virani (Supra) it is held by this Court exception sub-clause(3) of clause(i) of section 2(ea) pertains to any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him. Thus whenever legislature desired that exclusion may apply only if property is self occupied, it was so provided. Significantly, in sub-clause(5), there is no such insistence and that it nowhere provides that only if such commercial complex is occupied by the owner then alone the exclusion shall take effect.. Question raised for consideration in the present appeals are answered in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of the phrase "Commercial Establishment" or "Complexes" under Section 2-E(a) of the Wealth Tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the valuation of rent received from a factory building/sheds for the Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04 under the Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had added the rent to the total wealth as per Schedule III of the Act, but the CWT (Appeals) later deleted the addition. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which dismissed their appeal. The main issue was whether the property in question qualified as an asset under Section 2-E(a) of the Act, specifically regarding the interpretation of the terms "Commercial Establishment" or "Complexes."

The respondent argued that a previous decision by the Court had clarified that the exclusion under sub-clause(5) of clause(i) of section 2(ea) did not require that a commercial establishment or complex must be self-occupied by the owner to be excluded from the definition of assets. The Court highlighted that the legislation did not insist on self-occupation for such properties to be excluded, unlike in other clauses. The respondent's counsel emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in this regard.

The Department's counsel, unable to dispute the respondent's argument or present any contrary decision, conceded to the interpretation provided by the Court in the previous case. The Court, after considering the arguments and the previous decision, concluded that the exclusion under sub-clause(5) of clause(i) of section 2(ea) did not mandate self-occupation by the owner for a property to be excluded as a commercial establishment or complex. The Court relied on the precedent to uphold the respondent's position and dismissed the Tax Appeals filed by the revenue. The judgment confirmed the ITAT's decision and favored the respondent, with no costs awarded.

In summary, the Court's decision clarified the interpretation of the exclusion criteria for properties classified as commercial establishments or complexes under the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment emphasized that self-occupation by the owner was not a prerequisite for such properties to be excluded from the definition of assets. The ruling relied on a previous case law to support this interpretation and dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision.