9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year 1981-82. - Exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) in respect of cold storage & ice factory as an industrial undertaking. Analysis: 1. The appeals and cross-objections involved six appeals by the Revenue and six cross-objections by the assessee concerning orders of the AAC for the assessment year 1981-82. The AAC directed the WTO to allow deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, which the Revenue contested. The cross-objections related to the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) for cold storage and ice factory as an industrial undertaking. 2. The AAC found that the WTO did not allow deduction under section 5(1)(iv) while computing the net wealth of the assessee. Even though the appellants did not make a proper claim for this deduction, the AAC directed the WTO to allow the deduction, considering the value of the godown assessed. The Revenue appealed against the AAC's orders, arguing that the deduction was not claimed by the assessee. 3. The Departmental Representative contended that the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) was not claimed by the assessee, except in one case where it was allowed by the WTO. The counsel for the assessees supported the AAC's orders, emphasizing that the deduction was admissible against the assessed property. The Tribunal noted that the AAC's decision did not involve fresh facts and was justified based on existing material. 4. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a claim must have been made before the assessing authority or supported by material on record. In this case, the value of the property was assessed by the WTO, justifying the AAC's decision to allow the deduction. The appeals by the Revenue were rejected for five assessees except for one case where the deduction was already allowed. 5. In the case of one assessee who claimed deduction under section 5(1)(iv) for a different property, the AAC's decision to allow further claim against the godown was reversed, and the WTO's order was restored. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the claim must be specific to the property assessed. 6. Regarding the cross-objections by the assessees related to the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii), the AAC rejected the claim due to lack of details and absence of the claim before the WTO. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating that the material required for adjudicating the claim was not available with the WTO, and the claim was rightly rejected based on the Supreme Court judgment. 7. Ultimately, all cross-objections by the assessees and appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, except for one appeal that was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances and legal requirements of each case, ensuring adherence to the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents.
|
