9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) TMI 190 - ITAT COCHIN] we noted that this issue is covered in favour of the Assessee and hence respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we dismiss this issue of the Revenue s appeal. - W. T. A No. 30/CHNY/2008 & Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2021 [in W.T.A. No.30/Chny/2008] - - - Dated:- 6-7-2022 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Department by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal , JCIT Assessee by : Shri. Philip George , Advocate ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH , VP : This Wealth Tax appeal by the Revenue and the Cross- Objection by the Assessee, both are arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai in WTA No.3/07-08 dated 07.05.2008. 2. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle I, Chennai u/s.16(3) r.w.s.17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter the Act ) vide order dated 06.12.2007. 3. The first issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the cash in hand in excess of Rs.15,000/- as part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance sheet, the cash in hand is Rs.58,89,037/- and imprest with staff is Rs.5,14,406/-, which tallies with the closing balance as shown in the balance sheet of the assessee's business. The assessee is a proprietary concern. The cash balance generated out of trading activity is treated as business asset and as such, business asset was not to be treated as cash in hand within the of section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. In our considered opinion, we hold that cash in hand referred to in section 2(ea)(vi) represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. Admittedly, the impugned cash in hand represents the cash belonging to business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of business asset. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. We also noted that this issue was further considered by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Indore Bench in case of Shri Dinesh Chand Dave Vs, Income Tax Officer 2 (2), Indore reported in W.T.A. No.12/Ind/2018, order dated 26.07.2019; wherein this issue was considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DCWT(I.T.A.T. Kolkata) in WTANo.01/Kol/2017 order dated 08.11.2017 held that cash in hand ref erred to in Section 2( ea) (vi) of the Act represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplates the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. We find that the Kolkata Tribunal has given the above decision after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.R. Ushasree (supra),observing as follows: 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee had submitted a statement showing computation of global value of assessee's business at Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tfully fallowing the decision of Coordinate Bench of IT.A.T., Kolkata Bench, are of the considered view that both the lower authorities erred in including the business asset i.e. cash in hand of Rs.4,91,38,518/- as wealth of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged cash was part of regular cash in hand maintained by the assessee for the business purpose and due to the holiday on the last date of financial year and on the 1st 2nd April of the subsequent financial year, the cash received by the assessee on account of sale of gold at Noida and Agra branch on 30.03.2007 31.03.2007 remained as cash in hand which was subsequently, deposited in parts in the bank account on 3rd April 2007 and 4th April 2007 and 5th April 2007. As a result on which cash in hand as on 30.04.2007 was only Rs.13,230/-. Therefore, the alleged amount being held by the Assessee as a business asset in the capacity as proprietor of business concern M/s. Kargil Bullion the same is not liable to be included as assets in the wealth of the Assessee for the purpose of levying wealth tax. Thus, Ground No.1 of the Assessee s appeal is allowed. 7. As the issue is squarely covered and the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
