9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld show that the assessee was the sole owner of the land and other co-owners were namesake owners to avoid the provisions of Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order on this issue. Plea that the asset is not a land but building is also without any cogent evidence on record. Except for mere submission, there is nothing on record which would suggest that the assessee constructed building on this land. This plea was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings. However, the submissions were not supported by any material evidence. No plausible material has been produced before us also to substantiate this fact. Therefore, this plea of the assessee has also been rightly rejected by Ld. CIT(A). Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enior Standing Counsel ) - Ld. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ( Accountant Member ) 1. Aforesaid Wealth Tax appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2001-02 to 2007-08 arises out of separate assessment orders framed under erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The impugned order is common order for AYs 2001-02 to 2005-06 which is passed by learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai [CWT(A)] on 10.05.2010. The appellate order is common order for AYs 2006-07 2007-08 which is passed by same authority on same day. The issues are substantially the same in all the years. First, we take up appeal for AY 2001-02. The assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal which read as under: - 1. The order of the Learned Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for revenue controverted the arguments of Ld. AR and pleaded for dismissal of appeals. Having heard rival submissions and after careful consideration of relevant material on record, our adjudication would be as under. As is evident, three issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Property at Natesan Nagar ; (ii) deduction of debts owed by the assessee ; (iii) computation of interest. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged as a film artist. The assessee was subjected to a search action u/s. 132 of the Act on 23.01.2007. The assessee did not file any wealth tax returns earlier despite having taxable wealth. The assessee filed return of net wealth on 05.02.2007 declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re given to the assessee to obtain copies of seized material as required by the assessee. However, despite being provided with sufficient opportunities, the assessee chose not the avail the same. In the above background, Ld. AO proceeded with framing of the assessment. 3.3 The assessee could not file any documentary evidences to support the claim of debts owed for Rs.147.58 Lacs. Accordingly, the deduction of the same was denied to the assessee except deduction of vehicle loan. 3.4 The value of Land at Natesan Nagar was adopted as Rs.204.50 Lacs which were the values admitted by the assessee before Election Commission of India for AY 2006-07. Finally, wealth tax demand of Rs.6.38 Lacs was raised against the assessee. Appellate Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only in wealth tax returns. In Income tax returns also, capital gains were computed on sale of land only. The plea that the asset was building was taken up for the first time during appellate proceedings. The assessee could not show when the building was constructed. The claims made by the assessee were not supported by any evidence. Therefore, this claim could not be accepted. 4.4 Regarding valuation, Rule 20 of Schedule III mandate Ld. AO to value the land at price which it could fetch in open market on valuation date. Since, actual sale value was available i.e., Rs,204.50 Lacs, there was no merit that the valuation should have been referred to valuation officer. Finally, Ld. AO was directed to value the building in 2005-06 at Rs.204 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly rejected by Ld. CIT(A). 4.7 So far as the valuation of land is concerned, the extant rule required the assessee to value the land on valuation rate which the property would fetch if sold in the open market. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed Ld. AO to considered year-on-year appreciation of 10%. We are of the considered opinion that considering the given factual matrix, this rate is on the lower side. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to directed to adopt appreciation rate of 20% on year-on-year basis and recompute the value of the land. This ground stand partly allowed from AYs 2001-02 to 2004- 05 whereas this ground stand dismissed for AY 2005-06. Debt Owed 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld denial of deduction of debt-owed by observing that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
