9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r pleaded or raised by the assessee and hence, there is no merit in the order of CWT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, allowing the claim of assessee raised by way of an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Tribunal Rules, we remit this issue back to the file of CWT(A). The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. - WTA Nos.28 to 32/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM Appellant by : Shri Vivek Agrawal Respondent by : Smt. Deepa Khare ORDER Per Sushma Chowla, JM This bunch of five appeals filed by the Revenue are against consolidated order of CWT(A)-2, Nashik, dated 25.02.2016 relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 against respective orders passed under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (in short the Act ). 2. This bunch of appeals relating to same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, reference is being made to the facts and issue in WTA No.28/PUN/2016 to adjudicate the issue. 3. The Revenue in WTA No.28/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of value of the property for stamp duty purpose. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had not furnished any return of wealth. The Assessing Officer received information from the Joint CIT, Range-2, Jalgaon vide letter dated 19.08.2011, consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 17 of the Act on 30.03.2012. In response thereto, the assessee filed the return of wealth on 04.03.2013 declaring total wealth of ₹ 1,53,000/- after claiming exemption of ₹ 15 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the valuation of Final Plot No.591/6A, T.P.S. No.II, Ganesh Wadi, Jalgaon, where the assessee was having half share which was offered for taxation in the return of wealth, was not as per valuation report on record of the Government Approved Valuer Shri Suryakant S. Wakalkar. The said valuation report was received as information from the office of the Joint CIT, Range-2, Jalgaon. The assessee was show caused in this regard. In reply, the assessee submitted that the company M/s. Ram Infrastructure Ltd., Jalgaon, where the brother of assessee was Director, was in need of finance and the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown in the registered deeds was much more than the value for stamp duty purposes, hence, the fair market value of plot could be more than the value for stamp duty purpose. Accordingly, this issue was decided against the assessee. He further deliberated upon the second issue of deduction to be allowed under section 2(m) of the Act and he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer holding that the value of assets pledged with the bank for obtaining loan was deductible under section 2(m) of the Act. 8. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CWT(A). 9. The assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Tribunal Rules. 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of ACWT Vs. Shri Pradeep Dinkar Nehete in WTA Nos.02 to 06/PN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, order dated 19.02.2016, wherein the valuation of assets at Jalgaon was enhanced by the Assessing Officer on the basis of valuation report found. The Tribunal noted the fact that the value of property shown in the valuation report was deliberately taken on higher side in order to obtain highe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the said property has been valued as per the Government Approved rates, on the other hand, higher valuation was declared by the Government Approved Valuation, which was higher than the market value since the company M/s. Ram Infrastructure Ltd. wanted to avail the loan from the banks and the assessee and other co-owners had given the said properties as collateral securities and consequently, higher valuation of the properties to avail higher loan. The assessee time and again stressed that the market value of the property was much lesser i.e. what was declared by the assessee as per Government Approved rates. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of assessee and made an addition of ₹ 27,62,680/-. The CWT(A) on the other hand, confirmed the said addition but decided the issue of whether the value of assets pledged was deductible under section 2(m) of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in Biyani group with lead order in the case of Mrs. Sangita Manoj Biyani Vs. ACWT and others (supra). The Revenue is in appeal against the said directions of CWT(A). On the other hand, the assessee has mov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
