2019 (2) TMI 838 - AT - Wealth-tax

Reopening of wealth tax assessment - cash in hand appearing in balance sheet - Held that - The assessee is a proprietary concern. The cash balance generated out of trading activity is treated as business asset and as such, business asset was not to be treated as cash in hand within the meaning of section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. In our considered opinion, we hold that cash in hand referred to in section 2(ea)(vi) represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. Admittedly, the impugned cash in hand represents the cash belonging to business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of business asset. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In respect of property No. B-21/11 Gitanjali, New Delhi, it was an urban land and the construction was not allowed due to the illegal construction made by other co-owners. The AR of the assessee was unable to substantiate with cogent documentary evidence that the said property was being used for godown. The sanction plan was rejected because of the failure of MCD byelaws. If the assessee or the co-owner would have removed the encroachment or illegal construction of the property, the plan would have been sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that construction is not permitted in the impugned plot is not tenable and rejected. No any evidence is placed before us to substantiate that the said property was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has rightly given relief to the assessee to the extent of loan taken from Allahabad Bank against this property. This ground is rejected. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it is evident from record that the property was purchased as per sale deed dated 20.03.2006 from Ashok Kumar Jain who had purchased it from late Mr. Anil Roy Chowdhary. The assessee submitted a bill issued by Royal Security Services (PB-42). The period of services is only for 22.03.2006 to 31.03.2006, but no any proof of payment made to this security services is produced. The case is for F.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the impugned property was being used for the purpose of business is not acceptable. The title deed of the property is in the name of assessee and there is no adverse order againt the assessee to dispute the title of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Wealth Tax Act.
2. Approval requirement for issuance of notice under Wealth Tax Act.
3. Treatment of cash in hand as taxable wealth.
4. Exemption claims for properties under Wealth Tax Act.
5. Disputed ownership and usage of properties.
6. Adequacy of evidence and submissions in assessment proceedings.

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Wealth Tax Act:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax to pass orders under sections 16(3) and 17 solely based on audit objections, arguing that the jurisdiction vested with a different authority. The appellant contended that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and invalid. However, the Assessing Officer maintained that necessary approvals were obtained before issuing the notice under section 17. The Tribunal noted the contentions but did not find any jurisdictional error, upholding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction in the matter.

Approval requirement for issuance of notice under Wealth Tax Act:
The appellant raised objections regarding the approval process for issuing a notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, emphasizing the absence of prior approval from the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The appellant argued that the notice issued was void as it lacked the required approval under the Act. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had obtained the necessary approval as mandated by section 151 of the Act before issuing the notice under section 17, thereby dismissing the appellant's challenge on this ground.

Treatment of cash in hand as taxable wealth:
The dispute revolved around the inclusion of cash in hand in the appellant's balance sheet as taxable wealth. The Assessing Officer added the cash balance to the net wealth, rejecting the appellant's claim that it constituted a business asset, necessary for operational expenses. The Tribunal, after considering the nature of the cash balance and its business purpose, ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that cash generated from trading activities and maintained for business needs should not be treated as personal cash under section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act.

Exemption claims for properties under Wealth Tax Act:
The appellant sought exemptions for various properties, arguing that they qualified as business assets or were embroiled in legal disputes, thus not constituting taxable wealth. The Tribunal evaluated each property individually, considering usage, ownership, and legal status. While granting relief on certain grounds, the Tribunal dismissed exemption claims for properties where the appellant failed to substantiate commercial usage or where legal ownership disputes did not affect the appellant's title to the properties.

Disputed ownership and usage of properties:
The appellant's ownership and usage of specific properties came under scrutiny, especially regarding properties with contested titles or unauthorized constructions. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented by the appellant, including affidavits and submissions, to determine the properties' status as taxable wealth. In cases where the appellant could not establish commercial usage or clear ownership, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decisions to include the properties in the net taxable wealth.

Adequacy of evidence and submissions in assessment proceedings:
Throughout the proceedings, the appellant provided various submissions and evidence to support their claims for exemptions and challenge the inclusion of certain assets in the taxable wealth. However, the Tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, found that in some instances, the appellant's submissions lacked adequate proof or failed to address key aspects such as commercial usage or legal ownership disputes. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities where the appellant's contentions were deemed insufficient or unsubstantiated.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings on each matter, providing a detailed overview of the case's intricacies and the application of relevant provisions under the Wealth Tax Act.