9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claims that the said property was used for her own business, but conceded the fact that property was never used for the purpose of business during the impugned assessment years. The only argument advanced by the learned AR for the assessee is value adopted by the Assessing Officer and according to him, value adopted by the Assessing Officer is on higher side. Schedule III (2) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provides for valuation of asset and how such value to be determined. Assessing Officer shall determine value of property in accordance with Schedule III. In this case, the Assessing Officer has adopted value declared by the assessee, without following the procedure provided under Schedule III. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, are of the opinion that the appeals need to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments in respect of above two properties and determine the value of interest in partnership firm in accordance with Rule 16 and value of Saidapet property in accordance with Part B of Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act, 1957. - W.T.A.Nos.55, 56 & 57/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2021 - Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, President An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of hearing your appellant prays that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) be set aside and the additions consequentially deleted. 3. At the outset, learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 10 days for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act due to the fact that the authorized representative was out of station which caused delay of nine days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee submitted that the reasons given by assessee do not come within the ambit of reasonable and bonafide reasons, which cannot be considered for condonation of delay and hence, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Having heard both sides and considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached u/s.226(3) of the Income-Lax Mt. 1981 for recovery of tax demand of A.Y.2004-05. This property belonged to the assessoe since 1998. The assessee has not disclosed the above two properties to the Department in the wealth-tax returns filled by her for the A.Yrs.2005-06 2006-07. Hence the same is added to the net wealth. The assessee has shown Rutland Gate property as related liability and has not taken the value of ₹ 153,39,776/- in the net wealth. The assessee is also claiming exemption in respect of Thirukazhuundram property as self occupied residential House. The assessee is eligible for exemption in respect of only one property which she has already claimed. Hence, the Rutland Gate property is added to the net wealth. In the Order u/s.l6(5) dated 20.12.2007, only the value of jewellery has been taken. Hence, the remaining assets are reconciled and the assessment is completed as under: Net Wealth as per Order u/s.16(5) dated 20.12.2007 only the value of jewellery has been taken. Hence, the remaining assets are reconciled and the assessment is completed as under: Net wealth as per order u/s.16(5) dated 20.12.2007: ₹ 97,42.152/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h loans availed from different parties through account payee cheque and the same has been accepted during the income tax assessment proceedings and hence, liability for purchase of asset should be deducted to arrive at net wealth for the purpose of tax. 8. The learned CWT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of copy of partnership deed of M/s .Venkateshwara Combines, accepted the claim of the assessee that property is in the name of partnership firm and the same has been used for the purpose of business of the firm. However, he further noted that since the assessee has admitted that M/s .Venkateshwara Combines did not carry out any business, it cannot be said that impugned asset would partake the nature of commercial establishment, which is eligible for exemption u/s. 2(ea)(1)(v) of the Act and hence, the assessee cannot claim benefit of exemption in respect of impugned asset. As regards, Haddows Road property, the learned CWT(A) observed that the assessee failed to file any evidence that subject property would not fall within the definition of assets except one self-serving statement that said premises was used for business. In abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file of the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments by ascertaining correct value of property in the name of partnership firm and the property at Saidapet. 10. The learned D.R., on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the learned CWT(A) submitted that the learned CWT(A) has brought out clear facts to the effect that property at Saidapet and property at Haddows Road were included by the assessee in the wealth tax returns filed for the assessment year 2008-09 and hence, the argument that property is in the name of partnership firm is not substantiated with evidence and therefore, cannot be accepted. As regards property at Haddows Road , the assessee herself has admitted value of property at ₹ 1,40,00,000/- and hence, the argument that Assessing Officer has adopted higher value is not supported by any evidence including valuation report and hence, there is no reason to set aside the appeals filed by the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer has made additions towards two assets within the definition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
