2021 (4) TMI 1010 - AT - Wealth-tax

Wealth tax assessment - assessee wrongly admitted the value of the land at Baraniputhur as an asset in the AY 2008-09, although, the assessee was not owner of the land in that assessment year- HELD THAT - As the assessee became owner of the land during the period relevant to the AY 2009-10 only. However, the assessee pleads that when the compliances were made subsequent to the receipt of notices u/s.17B for various AYs in 2016, the assessee committed an error and admitted the value of land in the earlier year return itself i.e. in AY 2008-09. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the copies of Sale Deed, Encumbrance Certificate, etc. We are of the considered view that when the assessee became owner of the impugned land? i.e. whether during the period relevant to the AY 2008-09 or from the AY 2009-10, requires a fresh examination. We deem it fit to remit these issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place relevant material in support of its contentions before the AO and comply with the requirements in accordance with law. The AO on due examination and after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, shall determine the issues in accordance with law. Appeals filed by the assessee are tread as allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Determination of net wealth based on land ownership, Admission of value of land in wealth tax returns, Assessment of wealth tax, Remitting issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Delay in filing appeals:
The appellant, a non-resident, filed appeals against the Orders of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 with a delay of three days. The delay was attributed to the appellant not being available in India during the prescribed period for filing the appeals. The appellant contended that the delay was beyond their control and not willful. The Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interests of justice after hearing both parties.

Determination of net wealth based on land ownership:
The Wealth Tax Officer completed assessments for the appellant based on the possession of vacant land at Baraniputhur. The appellant admitted the value of the land at ?16,10,675 for both AYs. However, the market value of the land was adopted as ?24,00,000 based on TN Reginet, resulting in the determination of net wealth for the assessment years. The appellant acquired the land on 03.10.2008, but mistakenly admitted its value in the return for AY 2008-09, which led to confusion during assessments for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11. The Appellate Tribunal noted discrepancies in the ownership timeline and remitted the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination based on relevant material.

Admission of value of land in wealth tax returns:
The appellant inadvertently admitted the value of the land in Baraniputhur in the return for AY 2008-09, although the land was acquired in AY 2009-10. The appellant argued that the AO mistakenly assumed further land acquisition in AY 2009-10, leading to an incorrect determination of land ownership and subsequent valuation. The Appellate Tribunal considered the Sale Deed and Encumbrance Certificate submitted by the appellant and directed a fresh examination by the AO.

Assessment of wealth tax:
The AO charged interest under section 17B and completed the assessments, which were later appealed by the appellant. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax dismissed the appeals, leading to the appellant filing further appeals. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the submissions of both parties and found discrepancies in the assessment process, ultimately remitting the issues to the AO for proper examination and determination in accordance with the law.

Remitting issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination:
Based on the discrepancies in land ownership timelines and valuation, the Appellate Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the issues to the AO for a fresh examination. The appellant was directed to provide relevant material in support of their contentions, and the AO was instructed to determine the issues in accordance with the law after affording adequate opportunity to the appellant. The appeals filed by the appellant were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →