9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel For the Respondent : Mr S. Krishnan JUDGMENT Vibhu Bakhru, J 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeals under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereafter the Act ) calling into question a common order dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter Tribunal ) in WTA No. 21/Del/2013 and 22/Del/2013 relating to the assessment years (hereafter AY ) 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. The said appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging two orders both dated 30th April, 2013, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [hereafter CWT(A) )] in Appeal no. 395/CWT(A)XVII/ Del/2011-12 and 396/CWT(A)XVII/Del/2011-12, whereby, the appeals filed by the Assessee against the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act as unexplained investment in the said vehicle. The AO thus held that as the Assessee Company had been found to be the owner of the Lamborghini Car worth ₹ 1,40,00,000/- as on 31st March, 2006 and 31st March, 2007, its value had to be included in the taxable wealth of the Assessee u/s 2(ea) of the Act. Interest was also charged u/s 17B and penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed two appeals before the CWT(A) against the assessment orders for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08. The CWT(A) relying upon the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ITAT ) in the Assessee s Appeal in ITA No.2485/Del/2010 dated 13th July 2012, deleted the addition of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of undisclosed investment in Lamborghini Car 8. Since the central controversies involved in ITA 86/2013 and the present appeals were similar, these appeals were heard together with ITA 86/2013. At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that a decision in ITA 86/2013 would also determine the question framed in these appeals. 9. By a separate judgment delivered today, the question of law framed in ITA 86/2013 has been answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the same, the question of law framed in the present appeals is answered in the negative and in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
