9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appeals Nos. 06/PN/2014 (for assessment year 2006-07) and 07/PN/2014 (for assessment year 2007-08) have been filed by the assessee (Individual) against the order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-Central, Pune dated 11-03-2014 common for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. In WTA Nos. 08 to 11/PN/2014 the assessee (Bigger HUF) has filed appeals assailing the order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-Central, Pune dated 11-03-2014 common for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2007-08. Since, the issues raised in the present set of appeals are inter related, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication. WTA Nos. 06 07/PN/2014 2. The facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is an individual. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the following assets belong to M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF) : a) Residential Flat No. 101, 102 Building No. D.S. No. 59, 1st Floor, at Kumar Parisar Kothrud, Pune Valued at ₹ 12,05,000/-. b) Residential Bungalow at Navsahyadri Soc. Karve Nagar, Pune Valued at ₹ 52,76,510/-. c) Farm House at NDA Road, Pune Valued at & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he source of acquisition of the properties owned by the HUF is concerned, the HUF has acquired the property mainly out of its agricultural income. The HUF had 60.40 acres of land in 1952 which increased over the period of time to 188 acres in the year 2006. The ld. AR submitted that assuming but without admitting the estimation of agricultural income made by the Assessing Officer is not adequate to cover up the assets acquired despite the fact that these assets admittedly belongs to HUF, the value of assets over and above agricultural income estimated by the Assessing Officer can only be assessed as undisclosed investment by the HUF and thus should be assessed only in the hands of HUF. The said assets cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee individual merely because the HUF s claim is found to be inadequate. 3.1 The ld. AR further submitted that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has not given any reason as to why the assets should be assessed in the hands of the assessee in the absence of any evidence. In support of his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Smt. Khadija Rashid in ITA No. 612/PN/2004 decided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of M.N. Navale, Bigger HUF. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Ld. AO to exclude the value of the impugned properties from the net wealth of the appellant for the year in case the above-mentioned quantification exercise establishes the sources for acquisition of the properties concerned in the hands of the Bigger HUF. On the other hand, in case the aforesaid exercise precludes the possibility that the properties in question were acquired by the HUF, in such event, the AO is directed to include the value of the aforementioned properties in the net wealth of the appellant. For statistical purposes, this ground may be treated as partly allowed. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to make addition of assets in the net wealth of M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF) to the extent of matching sources of funds available and the remaining assets, if any in the net wealth of the assessee. The impugned order is reasoned and justified and thus calls for no interference. 6. In the result, WTA Nos. 06 07/PN/2014 are dismissed being devoid of merit. WTA Nos. 08 11/PN/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made assessment in the hands of the assessee (HUF) on protective basis. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) after placing reliance on the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 149/PN/2010 (supra) accepted the existence of HUF and remitted the file back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to make assessment on substantive basis. However, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) further directed the Assessing Officer to examine the source for acquiring the assets by the HUF by estimating the agricultural income of the assessee and in case the source of the acquisition of the property is not established the same should be included in the net wealth of M.N. Navale (Individual). The ld. AR submitted that the submissions made by him in respect of WTA Nos. 06 07/PN/2014 squarely apply in the present set of appeals as well. The ld. AR pointed out that the Department has accepted the wealth tax returns of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 wherein the impugned assets have been included in the net wealth of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
