9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 912,15,000/- being assessee's net wealth overlooking the exception below explanation 1(b) to the section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, though it was urban land." 3. The facts in brief, as emerged from the corresponding wealth-tax order passed under Section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1961 are that the assessee-company has shown use of piece of land for storage of goods. Because of the said claim, the assessee has shown the land as used for business purpose. Because of the said claim, it was explained that the said land was not within the definition of "asset" as prescribed under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act. The AO has not accepted that the land in question was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer by the appellant was not disputed. Thus, the land in question is covered under exceptions below Explanation 1(b) of section 2(ea), being land occupied by the factory building constructed with the approval of appropriate authority. The land in question cannot be included as 'asset' in appellant's taxable wealth u/s.2(ea)(v). The same can also not be included in appellant's taxable wealth as 'asset' u/s.2(ea)(i), being a property in the nature of commercial establishment. It is held that the land of the value of Rs.6,91,15,000/-, being appellant's factory premises cannot be included as 'asset' for the purpose of computing appellant's net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act." 5. From the side of the Revenue, Shri D.C.Patwari, CIT-DR appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtained either by the spot inspection, or by examining the land records of that area. We have noted that apparently, the AO has not done any such exercise, hence, there was lack of investigation at the time of assessment. We have also noted that the learned CWT(A) has given controverted finding on facts as given by the AO without granting an opportunity to the Revenue department, as prescribed under Rule 46 of IT Rules. It was expected from the learned CWT(A) to appraise the AO all the evidences which were submitted for the first time at the stage of first appeal. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore this ground back to the AO for examining the actual location of the land, whether it is a land appurtenant to the factory and whether it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debts incurred were in relation to acquisition of vehicles. However, as per section 7 of the Wealth tax Act, value of 'assets' is to be determined as on valuation date in the manner laid down in Schedule III. The vehicles in question were business assets and as per Rule 14(2)(a) of Schedule III, value of any assets disclosed in the balance sheet is to be taken as the written down value for depreciable assets. The Assessing-Officer is directed to adopt value of vehicles as per the W.D.V. in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2002." 10. Having heard submissions of both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that there is no fallacy in the finding of the learned CWT(A). According to us, the learned CWT(A) has rightly directed the AO to adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
