9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JP/2019, W.T.A. No.01/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2019 - Shri Ramesh C Sharma, AM And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM For the Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) For the Revenue : Shri Raj Mehra (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Wealth Tax Commissioner (Appeals)-4 [in short, the WTC(A)] Jaipur dated 17/12/2018 for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed U/s 17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (in short, the Act). 2. Common grounds have been taken by the assessee in WTA Nos. 02 to 04/JP/2019. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ld. WTC(A) for dismissing the assessee s appeals on the ground of not filing the appeals online whereas there is no provision/scheme requiring to file the wealth tax appeals through e-filing process. On merit, the assessee is aggrieved for not deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merits, when these grounds are covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case, in his favour. 3. The ld AR of the assessee plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer vide its order dated 31.03.2006 as held the following properties to be liable to wealth tax and computed the wealth tax accordingly: (a) Property at Mangal Marg : ₹ 21,00,263/- (b) Property at Rishikesh : ₹ 8,00,000/- (c) Property near Gaushala Alwar : ₹ 1,02,16,140/- (d) Land bearing Khasara No. 1990 : ₹ 10,00,000/- The total wealth was accordingly assessed at ₹ 2,03,24,772/- 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the necessary relief to the assessee and his findings are contained at para 4.3 and 4.4 of his order and which are reproduced as under:- 4.3 I have considered the assessment order as well as submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1998-99 to 2002-03 in WTA No. 6 to 10/JP/11, order dated 23.04.2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 in WTA No. 7/JP/14. It was also submitted that it is covered by order of CIT(A) dated 12.08.2010 for A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2002-03 in Appeal No. 165 164/06-07, 405/07-08, 300/08-09 and 194/09-10. 4.3 Regarding property at New Station road, Near Gaushala, Alwar, it was submitted that it is covered by order of ITAT in case of Shri Niranjan Lal Data dated 23.04.2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 in WTA No. 7/JP/14. It was also submitted that it is covered by order of CIT(A)dated 12.08.2010 for A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2002-03 in Appeal No. 165 164/06-07, 405/07-08, 300/08-09 and 194/09-10. 4.4 Regarding land bearing Khasra No. 1990, it was submitted that it is covered by order of CIT(A) dated 12.08.2010 for A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2002-03 in Appeal No. 165 164/06-07, 405/07-08, 300/08-09 and 194/09-10. Further, it was submitted that the plot is about 75 Sq. yards and therefore it is exempt u/s 5(i)(vi) of Wealth Tact Act, 1957 which provides exemption for a plot of land comprising of an area of 500 Sq. mtrs or less. 4.5 Regarding land at Beacon factory, it was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. It is argued by the learned authorized representative of the appellant that the area of the plant of land is Biswa as also mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, which comes about 75 sqyds. and the said plot of land is exempt within the meaning of section 5(i)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, since the area of the plot of land is less than 500 sq. mt. Considering, these factual position, which is also verifiable from the assessment order, the appellant is entitled to claim the exemption within the meaning of section 5(i)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, accordingly the addition of ₹ 2.00 in the net wealth of the appellant is hereby deleted and the appellant will get the resultant relief. 7.0 Next ground of appeal is directed against inclusion of ₹ 464640.00 being the land at Sonawa. The land is not an agriculture land but falling under the industrial area. It is stated by the Assessing that the assessee has not put the same for industrial purposes nor for agriculture purposes. The assessing Officer has applied the DLC rate of ₹ 211200.00 per Bigha for Sonawa Land and accordingly included in the net wealth of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n so made. It is also clear from the order of the ld. WTC(A) in the A.Y. 2006-07 that he has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1998-99 to 2002-03 vide order dated 20/08/2010 and for the A.Y. 2003-04 order dated 26/03/2012. The ld. WTC(A) has also observed that no appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Tribunal. In the A.Y. 2006-07, the ld. WTC(A) as well as the Tribunal have dealt with each and every properties of the assessee threadbare and during the years under consideration, the additions have been made by the A.O. with respect to the very same properties for which both the ld. WTC(A) and the Tribunal have decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, there is no justification for the additions so made by the WTO. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the ld. WTC(A) found that the appeals have not been filed electronically, he has not given any opportunity to the assessees to file the same, accordingly, there is violation of principles of natural justice more particularly when all the issues were already decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case and which was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
