2015 (11) TMI 912 - AT - Wealth-tax

Exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CWT(A)has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) for the plot under construction as the same does not come under the purview of house, or part of a house - Held that - CIT(A) categorically stated that the assessee was having a plot no. 6 in Mandakini Residential Scheme, Alaknanda, New Delhi, the said plot was measuring 260.10 sqm and was under construction during the year under consideration and that the construction had been done during the year 2010, therefore, the said house which was under construction was not liable to wealth tax - assessee was having a plot measuring 260.10 sqm allotted by DDA on 05.12.2002 situated at plot no. 6 Mandakini Residential Scheme, Alaknanda, New Delhi. The said plot was under construction for the years under consideration as construction had been done during the year 2010. Therefore, the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to case of CIT Vs Neena Jain 2010 (2) TMI 635 - Punjab and Haryana High Court . We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) for a plot under construction.
2. Interpretation of provisions of Wealth Tax Act regarding exemption for one house/property.
3. Application of Section 2(ea)(i)(1) of the Wealth Tax Act.
4. Justification of deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer.
5. Entitlement to exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) based on construction status of the property.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the department against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) for a plot under construction. The WTO observed that the plot was not exempt under the Wealth Tax Act and made additions to the declared wealth. The ld. CIT(A) directed the exemption, considering the property's construction status and relevant documents provided by the assessee.

2. The assessee contended that he was entitled to claim exemption for one house/property u/s 5(1)(vi) even if he had more than one property. The AO's application of Section 2(ea) was challenged, stating that the assessee had the option to claim exemption on either of two houses. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the exemption based on the property being under construction and cited relevant case law supporting the exemption for houses under construction.

3. The department argued that the WTO rightly made the addition due to the assessee owning two houses, while the ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in deleting the addition. The counsel for the assessee reiterated their stance, supporting the ld. CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal considered the construction status of the property and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision based on the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment regarding incomplete buildings not being liable to wealth tax.

4. The Tribunal referred to the ld. CIT(A)'s findings that the property was under construction during the relevant year, aligning with the judgment in CIT Vs Smt. Neena Jain. The incomplete nature of the building and the lack of certain components precluded it from being considered a complete structure for wealth tax purposes. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the inapplicability of wealth tax to properties under construction.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals, affirming the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) for the property under construction. The judgment highlighted the importance of the property's construction status and the applicability of relevant legal precedents in determining wealth tax liability.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning behind the final decision.