9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Tax Appeals by the Assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years. Since the appeals were heard together, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The ground raised in WTA NO. 5/Del/2013 reads as under:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer towards enhancement in the value of land owned by the firm where the appellant is a partner which enhancement is on an arbitrary basis. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by the Ld. Assessing Officer towards enhancement in the value of land owned by the firm where the appellant is a partner which enhancement is on an arbitrary basis. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the valuation of land has to be made in accordance with Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not valuing the interest of the appellant in the firm in accordance with Part E comprising of Rule 15, 16 read with Rule 14 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords, especially the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith the Orders dated 31.7.2013 13.12.2013 passed by the ITAT, Delhi Benches in WTA No. 3 4/D/2013 (A.Yrs. 2008-09 2009- 10) in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara vs. DCWT and in WTA Nos. 1 2/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10) in the case of Om Prakash Srivastava vs. DCWT. 5.1 We find that ITAT, Delhi Benches vide its Order dated 31.7.2013 in WTA No. 3 4/D/2013 (A.Yrs. 2008-09 2009-10) in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara vs. DCWT has adjudicated the issue as under:- 5. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer has added a sum of ₹ 1, 07,142/- in A.Y 2008-09 and ₹ 1,40,943/- in A.Y 2009-10 to the wealth of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing its earlier order dated 14/1/2000 in the case of Sahara India Finance and Investment Ltd itself, for the A.Ys 1991-92 to 1993-94 the Tribunal has noted as under:- 12. We find that the ITAT in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT for A.Yrs 1991-92 to 1993-94 vide order dated 14/1/2000 has adjudicated the issue as under:- 12. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative as well as the assessee s counsel. The Ld. Departmental Representative first of all submitted that the Assessing Officer, while determining the value of immovable properties, has adopted the rates as declared in the valuation report furnished by the assessee itself and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being business assets, its value was to be determined as per Rule 14 and not as per Rule 20 of Schedule III. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CWT (A), which is confirmed. 6. The Tribunal has also noted the decision dated 21/9/2010 of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Savings and Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT for the A.Y 1991-92 to 1993-94. It is as under:- In this case we are concerned with the immovable property (land) being business asset of the assessee. The value of the immovable property, as business asset of the assessee has to be taken in accordance with the Rule 3 in Schedule III appended to the Wealth Tax Act. It is only if any condition under Rule 8 is satisfied, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity. Since this ground has not been pressed before the Tribunal, it is rejected as such. 8. In the result appeals are allowed. 5.2 We also find that ITAT, Delhi Benches vide its Order dated 13.12.2013 in WTA No. 1 2/D/2013 (A.Yrs. 2008-09 2009-10) in the case of Om Prakash Srivastava vs. DCWT has followed the aforesaid order dated 31.7.2013 and decided the issue in favor of the assessee. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as explained above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved is squarely covered by the aforesaid orders dated 31.7.2013 and 13.12.2013 of the ITAT and the same is decided in favor of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
