2019 (1) TMI 479 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 defining the term assets - single unit cannot be excluded since in the exception clause, the word used is commercial establishments as in plural - Held that - Any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes would be excluded from the definition of term assets even if otherwise it falls under clause (i) of the said definition clause. Thus, as long as the property in question is a commercial establishment or complex, this exclusion clause would apply. This exclusion clause nowhere requires that to fall within this exception, the property in question must have multiple units in the nature of commercial establishments. The revenue s stress on the word establishments used in plural, is not quite acceptable. The term commercial establishments is used to exclude all commercial establishments and is not meant to restrict the application of exclusion clause only to commercial establishments which have multiple units.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 regarding the term "assets" - Exclusion of properties in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes from the definition of "assets" - Whether the properties rented out by the assessee qualify as commercial establishments for exemption from wealth tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957
The case involved the interpretation of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, specifically focusing on the definition of the term "assets." The respondent, an individual assessee, held three separate units rented out to a bank, claiming exemption from wealth tax under the exception clause (5) to Section 2(ea) of the Act. The assessing officer contended that since the exception clause mentioned "commercial establishments" in plural, a single unit could not be excluded. The revenue also raised concerns regarding the rental income being offered as income from house property in the income tax return.

Issue 2: Exclusion of properties in the nature of commercial establishments
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the appellate authority, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It referred to a previous decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that the term "commercial establishments" in the exception clause (5) of Section 2(ea) is meant to exclude all commercial establishments, without requiring multiple units. The High Court reiterated that the exclusion clause applies as long as the property in question is a commercial establishment or complex, regardless of the number of units. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that the exclusion should only apply to commercial establishments with multiple units.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the properties rented out by the assessee qualified as commercial establishments, meeting the criteria for exemption from wealth tax under Section 2(ea) of the Act. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decision, the Court emphasized that the exclusion clause does not mandate multiple units for a property to be considered a commercial establishment. Therefore, the Court dismissed the tax appeals, stating that no question of law arose in the case.