9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be based on certain stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer assessing him to income tax. Merely because capital gains tax was levied, assessed and sought to be charged on certain understanding or stand of the assessee, that does not mean that the Assessing Officer under the WT Act can issue a notice under Section 17 of the said Act. The ingredients, based on which the satisfaction can be recorded under Section 17, were clearly lacking. Once they were found to be lacking, then, we do not think that the Tribunal was required to refer to any wider principle of law or decide a larger issue or controversy. On facts, the Tribunal's view can be sustained, as it is eminently possible. - WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2014 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005. 7. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the footing that this asset was not disclosed for the purpose of wealth tax and that is how it has escaped the assessment under the WT Act. 8. The response of the assessee was a return of wealth which was filed on 28th April, 2005 declaring 'nil wealth'. The value of the land was taken in the assessment at ₹ 15 crores and the total wealth assessable was computed at ₹ 15 crores. This was done on a protective basis for the reason that in the income tax proceedings for the assessment year 1998-1999, the Assessing Officer was of the view that such properties stood transfered as on 31st March, 2002 and the resultant capital gain was brought to tax. Based on the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Merigold Premises Pvt Ltd is ₹ 11,55,00,000/. The assessee claims that the land under reference has been sold in themonth of March 2002, though the department does not agree to it. Without prejudice to proceedings in the Income Tax Act for AY 1998-99 and keeping in view the assessee's stand regarding the sale of the land that the sale of property situated at Vadgaon Sheri, S.No. 15 has taken place in A.Y. 2002-2003, it is clear that assessee has not disclosed the wealth of this land in addition to wealth chargeable to tax in respect of plot at Lohagaon (1/6th Share in 2.00 acres plot and house property situated at Nana Peth excluding one house property situated at Ahmednagar, claimed to be occupied by assessee and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely because capital gains tax was levied, assessed and sought to be charged on certain understanding or stand of the assessee, that does not mean that the Assessing Officer under the WT Act can issue a notice under Section 17 of the said Act. The ingredients, based on which the satisfaction can be recorded under Section 17, were clearly lacking. Once they were found to be lacking, then, we do not think that the Tribunal was required to refer to any wider principle of law or decide a larger issue or controversy. On facts, the Tribunal's view can be sustained, as it is eminently possible. Consequently, the present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
