9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same have been let out and the occupants are using it for such commercial activities. Even with regard to the property let out at Pune Camp and at Lalbaug Society, the same were being used for commercial activities. Even with regard to the Office space at Sharda Arcade, Pune, the assessee pointed out that the same was on rent to Wipro Ltd., and was being used for commercial activities. - no error on the part of the CWT(Appeals) in holding that the aforesaid properties are covered by the exception provided in Explanation (5) below section 2(ea)(i) of the Act and, therefore, the same are excludible for the purposes of computing net wealth chargeable to tax for the A.Y.200-01. - Decision in the case of Satvinder Singh vs. DCWT [2006 (9) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Wealth-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the commercial properties let out by the assessee are outside the purview of sec. 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 without appreciating that the said properties are commercial house properties and not in the nature of commercial complexes. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in interpreting the term "commercial property" thereby treating it indistinguishable from commercial complexes or commercial establishments. Such an interpretation renders the expression 'whether used for residential or commercial purposes' used in sub clause (i) of clause (ea) otiose which could not be the intent of legislation. 6. For these and such other grounds as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, but essentially the grievance is against the action of the CWT(Appeals) in holding that the aforesaid commercial properties let out by the assessee are outside the purview of section 2(ea)(i) having regard to Explanation (5) thereof. 5. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Representative for the respondent assessee pointed out that the CWT(Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Satvinder Singh vs. DCWT 109 ITD 241 (Pune), to hold that the impugned properties which have been let out for commercial purposes falls within the exemption provided by Explanation (5) to section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(DR) appearing for the Revenue has reiterated the stand of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the property in the nature of commercial establishment or complex should be occupied by the assessee for the purposes of business or profession carried on by him as was the case in Explanation (3) which excludes any house occupied by the assessee for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him. For the purposes of applying Explanation (5) to section 2(ea) the nature and use of the property is material. Following the aforesaid precedent, it is clear that in order to evaluate a claim for exclusion based on Explanation (5) to section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, the assessee has to demonstrate that the property is in the nature of commercial establishment or complexes, though the commercial activity may not be carried by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
