9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all, we have no hesitation in directing the Ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of ₹ 48,81,761/- from the value of net wealth representing business cash. Accordingly, the grounds 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. - W.T.A No. 01/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Hon ble Shri M. Balaganesh, AM And Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM For the Appellant : Smt. Parnashree Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri [in short the ld CWT(A)] in Appeal No.05/CWT(A)/SLG/2014-15 dated 16.12.2016 against the order passed by the DCWT, Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails of valuation as per Schedule III Rule 14 are as under: 4. The Ld. AO completed the wealth tax assessment by adding cash balance as on the valuation date in the sum of ₹ 48,81,761/- reflected in the balance sheet of the proprietary concern as an eligible asset u/s 2(ea) of the Act. This action of the Ld. AO was upheld by the Ld. CWTA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CWT(A) erred in having upheld the addition of ₹ 48,81,761/- on account of cash in hand to the net wealth of the appellant without considering that such cash in hand was the productive asset of the appellant s proprietorship concern and hence does not fall within the scope and ambit of the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. We find that the assessee had submitted a statement showing computation of global value of assessee s business at ₹ 9,47,580/- as per procedure laid down in Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rules for determining the value of assets. The Ld. CWTA however rejected this argument of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.R. Ushasree reported in 332 ITR 75 (Ker). We find that the Hon ble Kerala High Court rejected the contention of the assessee that so far as businessman are concerned, cash in hand was an eligible asset and therefore, it was not covered by Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. However, we find from the perusal of the said judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. If it is so held, then the purpose of valuation method prescribed in Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rule would become redundant. Admittedly, the cash in hand of ₹ 48,81,761/- represents the cash belonging to the business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of a business asset. 6. In view of these findings and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in directing the Ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of ₹ 48,81,761/- from the value of net wealth representing business cash. Accordingly, the grounds 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. The assessee has raised groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
