9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence that the said property was being used for godown. The sanction plan was rejected because of the failure of MCD byelaws. If the assessee or the co-owner would have removed the encroachment or illegal construction of the property, the plan would have been sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that construction is not permitted in the impugned plot is not tenable and rejected. No any evidence is placed before us to substantiate that the said property was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has rightly given relief to the assessee to the extent of loan taken from Allahabad Bank against this property. This ground is rejected. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it is evident from record that the property was purchased as per sale deed dated 20.03.2006 from Ashok Kumar Jain who had purchased it from late Mr. Anil Roy Chowdhary. The assessee submitted a bill issued by Royal Security Services (PB-42). The period of services is only for 22.03.2006 to 31.03.2006, but no any proof of payment made to this security services is produced. The case is for F.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of pending audit objection on reminder by Audit Officer. The re-assessment proceedings u/s 16(3) rws 17 of Wealth Tax Act is without jurisdiction and invalid. 4. That the CIT (A) forming opinion that the alleged approval u/s 148 rws 151 is erroneous as it seems the approval was granted in routine by wrong mention of Section of Income Tax instead of Wealth Tax Act is based on presumption and contrary to facts on record. The provision of Sec 42C of Wealth Tax invoked by CIT (A) is not attracted in case of Assessee. 5. That the addition of cash in hand ₹ 58, 39,307 is duly recorded in books and is reflected in the Audited Balance Sheet as on 31st March 2006. The Cash in Hand is productive Business Asset and is maintained for timely payments of wages and purchases. The Assessee is a Civil Contractor carrying On Construction Activity at various sites of the customers where poor Banking and other facilities are available. The keeping of Cash in hand in Assessee's nature of Business is necessary. The rejection of the claim for exemption by CIT(A) on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that the cash in hand is meant for discharging business liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65,610/- (24,25,610 + 2,75,40,000). In addition to this assessee also has vehicles amounting to ₹ 5,20,658/-. The mistake resulted in underassessment of income of ₹ 3,48,25,305/- involving wealth tax of ₹ 5,15,777/- including interest. The escapement of wealth has been on account of failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment. Thus, it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 17 of W.T. Act, 1957. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown cash in hand in his balance sheet of ₹ 58,89,037/-. The assessee submitted that this amount is duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it does not come in the definition of taxable wealth. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply of assessee and after giving deduction of ₹ 50,000/-, he added balance ₹ 58,39,037/- in the net wealth of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that certain properties which were claimed as exempt from net wealth by treating it as business asset whereas in fact, the properties were situated in urban residential area, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and submitted in respect of cash balance appearing in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2006 that it was the business asset which is not included in the definition of net wealth as per provisions of section 2(ea). Further, in respect of property No. B-21/11, Gitanjali, New Delhi, he submitted that MCD did not give permission for making construction and the plan put up for sanction has been rejected by the MCD. Therefore, it does not form part of the total taxable net wealth. The above property was being used for business purpose. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it was submitted that the case was pending before the Hon ble Delhi High Court regarding ownership of the property. He also invited our attention to the paper book and the High Court order. Therefore, being a disputed property, it cannot be considered as taxable net wealth. He submitted a paper book containing pages 1-80 along with compilation of case laws. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the case laws cited by the assessee are not applicable to the present case. 6. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire materials available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. This ground is rejected. 8. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it is evident from record that the property was purchased as per sale deed dated 20.03.2006 from Ashok Kumar Jain who had purchased it from late Mr. Anil Roy Chowdhary. The assessee submitted a bill issued by Royal Security Services (PB-42). The period of services is only for 22.03.2006 to 31.03.2006, but no any proof of payment made to this security services is produced. The case is for F.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the impugned property was being used for the purpose of business is not acceptable. The contention of the assessee has also been that since the title of this property turned out to be fraudulent, the legal heir of late Sh. Anil Roy Chowdhary had filed a Civil Suit before the competent court. The ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of written submissions on behalf of the assessee given before the High Court in Civil Suit No. 1603 of 2008 (PB 51 to 60). We have gone through the said written submissions and we find that the title of the property was admitted to be clear in the hands of Ashok Kumar Jain from whom the assessee had purchased the impugned prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
