9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment in shares, jewellery, cash, unexplained money, and other unexplained assets, which in any case represents assets liable for levy of wealth tax. AR apart from making general submissions did not bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we find no merits in the submissions of the learned AR. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta v/s DCIT, [ 2019 (2) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI] granted substantial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal, the total taxable income of Rs.299,77,95,160 was reduced to Rs.32,54,186, which has been adopted by the learned CIT(A) for computation of taxable wealth in the present case. Further, since from the very first Wealth Tax assessment order dated 28/03/1995, passed by the WTO under section 16(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee is considered for computation of gross wealth, we find no merits in the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal Addition on account of appreciation in the value of shareholding - As evident that the coordinate bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r necessary verification. As a result, ground raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of interest u/s 17B - This issue by following the decision of its predecessor in earlier rounds of litigation. We find that the interest u/s 17B of the Act is to be charged for the period commencing from the due date of filing the return till the date of filing the return or till the date of assessment, whichever is earlier. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on this issue and direct the AO to levy interest u/s17B of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a result, ground raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of interest under section 31 - We find that in CIT v/s Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [ 2011 (11) TMI 118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that where pursuant to remand, the AO passed a fresh assessment order, on failure of the assessee to pay the demand within the prescribed time the interest u/s 220 (2) is to be levied from the date of fresh demand. Since, provisions of section 220(2) are pari materia to section 31 of the Act, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the income tax proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of on account of appreciation in the value of assets at Rs. 32,54,188/- on the basis of the addition made under the Income tax Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of appreciation in the value of shareholding at Rs. 396,18,86,766/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming addition on account of appreciation in the value of Jewellery at Rs. 46,080/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of value of stock exchange membership card at Rs. 62,50,000/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in computing the deduction on account of personal expenses of the appellant at Rs. 5,00,000/- only. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not granting deduction on account of entire Income tax liabilities, including interest, penalty, etc and restricting the deduction to Rs. 142,93,74,864/-. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not granting deduction on account of entire Wealth tax liability including interest, pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wealth of the assessee by adding net wealth as on 31/03/1991, total income assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and appreciation in value of assets, after reducing the personal expenses. The WTO also made the addition on account of appreciation in the value of jewellery and the value of stock exchange membership card and accordingly, computed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs.796,80,47,984. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 13/12/2007, in assessee's appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) ["learned CWT(A)"], remitted the Wealth Tax assessment to the WTO for de novo adjudication, since the Income Tax assessment was also set aside and remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication. 9. In second round of proceedings, the WTO vide order dated 23/12/2008, passed pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal, computed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs.572,38,81,100, after taking into account the total income of Rs.406,89,84,081, assessed vide order dated 18/12/2007, passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 14/01/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, and information gathered from various sources. Further, it was held that the income of the assessee is represented by accounted and unaccounted investment in shares, jewellery, cash, unexplained money, and other unexplained assets, which in any case represents assets liable for levy of wealth tax. The learned AR apart from making general submissions did not bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we find no merits in the submissions of the learned AR. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 4204/Mum/2017, vide order dated 14/01/2019 for the assessment year 1992-93, granted substantial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, vide order dated 29/07/2019 giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal, the total taxable income of Rs.299,77,95,160 was reduced to Rs.32,54,186, which has been adopted by the learned CIT(A) for computation of taxable wealth in the present case. Further, since from the very first Wealth Tax assessment order dated 28/03/1995, passed by the WTO under section 16(3) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per the aforesaid assessment order, the printouts of the data were provided to the assessee and she was asked to give details/explanations on the same. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that she should be provided with all the original documents collected from various sources before the reply can be furnished. On the basis of the information available from the sources as mentioned above, the closing stock determined as on 31/03/1991 was taken as opening stock of the assessee for the year under consideration and a scrip-wise trading account was prepared. Based on the aforesaid information, the AO calculated the details of purchases and sale of shares affected by the assessee from various sources during the period 01/04/1991 to 31/03/1992 and for the period 01/04/1992 to 08/06/1992, i.e. the date of notification as a notified person. By comparing the physical stock of shares as on 31/03/1992 with stock as on 08/06/1992, the AO computed the shortage in shares in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93. The AO treated the shortage of shares as having been sold by the assessee as on 31/03/1992 and accordingly applied the market rate of these shares as on 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer, based on the purchase and sale data so gathered for the period 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992, determined stock held by the assessee as on 31.03.1992. Subsequently, the AO computed stock as on 08.06.1992 by adjusting the purchases and/ or sales transactions undertaken during the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06.1992, details of which were also obtained from these sources as mentioned above but without bringing any supporting evidence before us. The AO also computed physical stock of the assessee as on 08.06.1992 comprising of: - a) registered holdings with the companies, b) other Benami shares declared by the assessee and c) unregistered shares held by the assessee. 15.38. The AO thereafter, compared the physical stock (computed as on 08.06.1992) with the stock as on 08.06.1992 and worked out shortage in shares in the hands of the assessee for AY 1992-93. The AO has treated the shortage of shares so worked out as having been sold by the assessee on 31.03.1992 and accordingly the AO has applied the market rate of these shares as on 31.03.1992 to arrive at total sale consideration of such shares which the assessee would have received. After reducing the cost of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal are as under:- "…………… (ii) Wherever the additions are proposed on the basis of seized material or materials collected from third parties, the copies thereof need to be provided to the assessee. If requested for, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. (iii) Additions should not be repeated on the basis of the presumptions and inferences. Additions must be made only on the basis of materials and evidences available on record. (iv)……………………………… (i) The AO has to accept the request of the assessee for obtaining materials from the Custodian, Banks and Companies etc. For that matter, wherever necessary, the AO may issue summons u/s. 131 and the inquiries must be made effective and fruitful." 15.39. The ld. DR even though vehemently contended that the seized material was made available to the assessee which was denied by the AR, even no cogent material or evidence was brought or produced before us. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, directed the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat she requires time to find out the evidences regarding this addition. The learned Addl. CIT is also directed to bring evidences regarding each itemized addition on the next date of hearing, so that hearing can be concluded at the earliest, we , therefore adjourned matter to 22.3.2018, on that date also matter adjourned to 27.3.2018 to give full opportunity to the revenue to adduce the evidence to support the addition. On 27.3.2018, the Assessing Officer, Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle has made a statement at bar that as on date, he could not lay his hand on the material relied upon by the assessing officer in his assessment order, but in a month he will produce whatever material relied on by the assessing officer in the case of all these three assessee, viz. for AYs 1992-93 and in case of Shri Ashwin Mehta for AY 1993-94. As the AO undertook to file all co-relating evidence relating to these assessments in a month's time, we therefore adjourned the appeals to 02.05.2018. On 2.5.2018 instead of producing the relevant material as desired, Revenue has filed a petition for adjournment letter vide No. DCIT-CC-4()/Mum/HSM Group/ 2018-19 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the submission of the Ld A R that when the purchases have been estimated on average cost, how the sales have been estimated merely on the basis of the rate prevailing as on 31.3.1992 and how these shortage computed as on 8.6.92 will relate to this assessment year 1992-93. Even no material or evidence has been brought before us working out the shortage of shares as on 31.3.1992 so that the addition could be co-related to this assessment year if it has to be sustained on the basis of material if brought on record. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm view that the additions have been made by the assessing officer merely on estimate basis without bringing the evidences in this regard. Therefore, we delete the addition and allow the ground no. 13 to 16 taken by the assessee." 19. Thus from the above findings, it is evident that the coordinate bench observed that despite sufficient opportunity the Revenue failed to adduce the relevant material on the basis of which figures of purchase and sale of shares have been computed. Therefore, in view of the above, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the WTO for de novo adjudication in light of the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s considered by the WTO is prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee, and subsequent to the search and outbreak of the scam, the value of the stock exchange card would have fallen. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Ashwin C. Shah, 254 ITR(AT) 90 (Mum-Trib.) held that the right of membership of the BSE under the stock exchange card is merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the BSE and it cannot amount to "property" or "interest in property" to constitute an "asset" within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act and thus no tax is payable in respect of such stock exchange card of the BSE. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the addition made on account of the value of the stock exchange membership card is deleted. As a result, ground no.5 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed. 26. The issue arising in ground no.6 raised in assessee's appeal pertaining to the deduction on account of personal expenses is consequential to issues arising in grounds no.1-3. Accordingly, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purposes. 27. The issue arising in grounds no.7 and 8 pertaining to the deduction on account of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to set aside the impugned order on this issue and direct the AO to levy interest under section 17B of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a result, ground No. 10 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 30. The issue arising in ground No. 2, raised in Revenue‟s appeal, is pertaining to the levy of interest under section 31 of the Act. 31. We find that while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, observed as under:- "25.5 It is observed that my learned predecessor had decided the issue in favour of the appellant, following decisions of various High Courts, including the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Chika Overseas P. Ltd., decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and the CBDT Circular No.334 dated 3/4/1982. In the circular dated 3/4/1982, the CBDT has, inter alia, clarified that where an assessment order is set aside by an appellate authority and the setting aside has become final, no interest u/s.220(2) can be charged pursuant to the original demand notice and that when the assessment is reframed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
