2012 (4) TMI 151 - AT - Wealth-tax

Wealth-tax appeals - assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of glass products due to adverse conditions faced by assessee granted plant and machinery and land and buildings on lease - offered the lease rent and processing charges earned for taxation under the head Business income AO held assessee was earning rental income assets leased out are liable for wealth-tax Held that - the nature and character of the properties given on lease remained the same even after the properties were let out - whether the business of manufacturing glass products is carried on by the assessee company itself or by the lessor, the assets including land, buildings, plant and machineries always remained as properties in the nature of commercial establishments occupied for the purpose of carrying on business any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes is excluded from the definition of assets liable for wealth tax - in favour of assesee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of wealth-tax on leased assets, Jurisdiction to complete assessments under section 17(3), Characterization of assets as taxable under Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two wealth-tax appeals filed by the assessee against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III at Chennai for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The issue revolved around the treatment of assets leased out by the assessee to another company as taxable assets for wealth-tax purposes.

2. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing glass products, leased its manufacturing facilities to another company due to adverse conditions. The lease agreement granted the lessee absolute rights to exploit the plant and machinery. The assessee offered the lease rent and processing charges for taxation under 'Business income'. The Assessing Officer later concluded that the leased assets were taxable for wealth-tax, leading to wealth-tax assessments for the impugned years.

3. The appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) raised objections on the legality of wealth-escaping assessments and the characterization of leased assets as taxable. The Commissioner rejected the grounds, upholding the wealth-tax assessments. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the jurisdiction and merits of the assessments.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the jurisdictional aspect, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's decision to issue notices under section 17 was valid due to the absence of wealth-tax returns by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision to support its stance on jurisdiction, highlighting that the assessments were processed under section 143(1) for the impugned years.

5. On the merits, the Tribunal carefully examined the nature of the assets leased by the assessee. It noted that the assets, including land, buildings, and machinery, retained their commercial/industrial character before and after the lease agreement. The assets were always productive/commercial/industrial in nature, qualifying for exemption under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act as commercial establishments or complexes.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the leased assets did not attract wealth-tax as they remained commercial assets utilized for manufacturing business purposes. Therefore, it set aside the wealth-tax levied for the impugned years 1997-98 and 1998-99, partially allowing the appeals. The Tribunal also dismissed the stay petitions as infructuous, bringing the case to a close with the appeals partly allowed.