9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed 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 Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) is unjust and contrary to law and facts. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,39,67,630/- to the wealth of the appellant without appreciating that the said property was used for the business of the appellant and is not assessable to wealth tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 declaring taxable wealth of Rs.41.60 Lacs which is extracted in para-5 of the assessment order. However, the assessee revised the return on 21.02.2007 and reduced the net wealth to Nil. The same was due to the fact that the assessee claimed debt owed for Rs.147.58 Lacs as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Kotak Mahindra Finance 8,99,138/- 2. Cheranadu Movie Creation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital loss of Rs.32.61 Lacs on sale of Land at Natesan Nagar. The land was sold for Rs.204.50 Lacs during AY 2006-07. This property was in the name of the assessee and four other joint names. In the sworn statement recorded on 05.02.2007, the assessee admitted that the property was his acquisition only and the other co-owners were former employees. To avoid the provisions of Land Ceiling Act, the land was purchased in joint names. Accordingly, entire loss was claimed by the assessee in Income Tax Return. However, in the wealth tax return, the assessee returned the value as Rs.15.42 Lacs which was based on cost of acquisition in December, 1988 and cost of improvement in 1988-89 & 1989-90. The value of other co-owners was not included in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 10%. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.5 From the factual matrix, it emerges that though the property was held in joint names, however, for all practical purposes, the assessee was the sole owner of the property. All the other joint owners were former employee having no source of income. In fact, the assessee himself claimed Long Term Capital Loss on entire property while filing its Income Tax Returns. The same was also affirmed by the assessee in sworn statement which was never retracted. Even before constitutional authority, the assessee was declared to be the sole owner of the land. All these circumstantial evidences would show that the assessee was the sole owner of the land and other co-owners were namesake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable wealth. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
5.2 We find that the onus to prove the nexus of liabilities with the taxable wealth could not be discharged by the assessee. No new material has been placed before us to establish this nexus. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the assessee on this score. The grounds stand dismissed for all the years.
6. So far as the computation of interest is concerned, it would be suffice to direct Ld. AO to compute correct interest in accordance with law. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes for all the years.
Conclusion
7. All the appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced on 05th August, 2022. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
