2012 (6) TMI 668 - HC - Wealth-tax

Exemption under wealth tax - assets u/s 2(ea) - Valuation of assets under WT Act - leasehold property - commercial complex let out on rent Held that - By an amendment in clause (ea) of section 2, commercial buildings, which are not occupied by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession, other than the business of letting out properties, shall be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - said amended section was in force only for two years by the Finance Act (No. 2), 1998. It is clear from the Explanatory Notes, the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular and the subsequent action of further amending the said section, that the intention was not to tax business assets used by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession and also the business assets which are let out, if the assessee is in the business of letting out properties. All other types of commercial properties were brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act. Assessee was justified in claiming the exclusion of the properties which are the subject of the matter of the proceedings, from wealth-tax In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders excluding asset from wealth-tax levy for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging orders excluding the asset owned and used by the assessee-company from wealth-tax levy. The asset in question is a commercial complex in M.G. Road, Bangalore, generating rental income. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the Wealth-tax Act, specifically section 2(ea) post-amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996. The amendment broadened the definition of "assets" to include commercial properties not used for business or profession, except for letting out properties. The assessee claimed exemption based on this amendment, while the Revenue contended otherwise. The Tribunal and appellate authorities sided with the assessee, emphasizing the legislative intent to exclude business assets from wealth-tax. The Central Board of Direct Taxes' circular and explanatory notes supported this interpretation. The court held in favor of the assessee, stating that the property in question, being a business asset, was rightly excluded from wealth-tax. The judgment emphasized the intention to promote investment in productive assets, excluding business assets not used for business or let out by the assessee from wealth-tax liability.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, upholding the exclusion of the asset from wealth-tax levy for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent behind the Wealth-tax Act amendments and the exclusion of business assets from wealth-tax liability, providing relief to the assessee in this case.