2016 (1) TMI 976 - AT - Wealth-tax

Inclusion of rented premises into wealth tax assessment - revenue yielding asset - power of revision u/s 25 of the CIT - Held that - section 2(ea)(i) nowhere requires that a commercial establishment or a complex could not be established in a house property but only provides that any property in the nature of commercial establishment or complex shall be excluded from deemed asset as defined in clause 1 of section 2(ea). Further, it nowhere provides that only commercial establishment or complex is occupied by owner, then, only the exception shall take effect . In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned property is not covered by the definition of asset so as to bring to tax under the WT Act. Further, the order of the AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the AO has examined the taxability of the impugned property by issuing show cause notice and the assessee has explained the nature of the property in detail as extracted above. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the AO formed an opinion in not bringing the property to tax and the same cannot be substituted by the CIT in the proceedings u/s 25(2) of the Act - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Non-filing of Wealth Tax (WT) returns by the assessee.
3. Inclusion of leased property value in wealth assessment.
4. Determination of property as a commercial establishment for WT purposes.
5. Examination of AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals were filed with a delay of 45 days. The delay was attributed to financial difficulties faced by the company, which distracted the Executive Director from filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the reasons provided, acknowledging that the delay was not intentional or with contumacious conduct.

2. Non-filing of Wealth Tax (WT) Returns by the Assessee:
The assessee, a company, did not file its WT returns for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Consequently, a notice under section 17 of the WT Act was issued, leading the assessee to file returns declaring wealth of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 13,89,500, respectively. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessments under section 16(3), accepting the declared wealth.

3. Inclusion of Leased Property Value in Wealth Assessment:
The CIT-II initiated proceedings under section 25 of the WT Act, considering the AO's omission to include the value of the property leased to M/s BHEL Gas Turbine Services (P) Ltd. in the wealth assessment. The CIT-II deemed the AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, directing the inclusion of the property's value for WT purposes.

4. Determination of Property as a Commercial Establishment for WT Purposes:
The assessee contended that the leased property was a commercial establishment and thus not subject to WT provisions. The property was developed per the lessee's specifications and rented out for business purposes. The Tribunal referenced the definition of 'asset' under section 2(ea) of the WT Act and relevant case laws, including Satvinder Singh Vs. DCWT and CIT Vs. Vasumati ben Chhaganlal Virani, to conclude that the property qualified as a commercial establishment. Consequently, it was exempt from WT under sub-clause 5 of section 2(ea)(i).

5. Examination of AO's Order as Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue Interests:
The Tribunal examined whether the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. It was noted that the AO had issued a show-cause notice and considered the assessee's explanation regarding the property's nature. The Tribunal held that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's contention indicated that the AO had applied his mind, and thus, the CIT could not substitute his opinion under section 25. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT to support this view. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the AO's order, concluding that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interests.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, condoning the delay in filing and determining that the leased property qualified as a commercial establishment exempt from WT. The AO's order was restored, as it was not found to be erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests.

← Previous Next →