9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead as declared at Rs.26,52,136/- without considering the submissions of the Appellant that there was an encumbrance on the property in the form of right of use of Rajal that required to be discounted for determining the total wealth. 2. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in not considering various explanations, submissions and evidences placed on record by the appellant in its proper perspective. This action of both the lower authorities is in clear breach of Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding Wealth Tax Orders passed u/s.16(3) of the WT Act for A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively dated 24/10/2008 and 17/08/2009 were that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has been offered for wealth tax." 2.1. On the basis of those facts, the AO had held that in accordance to the Schedule-III of WT Act, 1957 and as per Rule 18, the value of the jewellery shall be the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. The WTO has also referred Rule 21 to Schedule-III which provides that any restrictive covenants provided under a deed of a Trust are to be ignored to determine the price of any property it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. Therefore, the restrictive covenants were ignored while determining the market value. The WTO has also mentioned a Circular No.281 dated 22.9.80 which says that, quote "with a view to putting a curb on the practice of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed by the assessee. The report of A.O. is also considered whereby he agreed to apply the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeals No.34 to 36 of 2005 and Tax Appeal No.935 of 2008. It is pertinent to note that in all the assessment years under appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years held that A.O. rightly denied the deduction towards Right of user of Rajal. Following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the earlier years, the view taken by the ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) is upheld subject to the rider that when the decision of the h' High Court in respect of the earlier years is available, the A.O. will apply the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
