TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Dismissed on Reopening of Wealth Tax Assessment for 2010-11</h1> <h3>Sri D.U. Mallikarjuna, Smt. Gowri Mallikarjuna Versus ACIT of Wealth Tax Central Circle-2 (3) Bengaluru</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals challenging the reopening of assessment under the Wealth Tax Act for the ... Wealth tax assessment - Validity of reopening of assessment - sustaining the addition made by the AO under Wealth Tax Act - HELD THAT:- AO has mentioned in the assessment order that he has duly recorded the reasons and the same was served upon the assessee. This observation of the AO, in the absence of any other contrary material, has to be considered as true. Before us also, the assessee did not furnish any material to disprove the observations made by the AO. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by Ld CIT(A) that the AO has followed correct procedure for reopening the assessment. Addition of value of plot and the value of construction under progress - CIT(A) took the view that the value of building under construction is not exigible to Wealth tax - HELD THAT:- A careful reading of the provisions of sec.5(1)(vi) would show that it provides exemption of one house or part of a house or a plot of land. Hence exemption shall be available only for any one of the items mentioned in sec.5(1)(vi) of the Act, i.e., either for one house or for part of house or for a plot of land. If the assessee have already claimed exemption of one house, then, in our view, they cannot claim exemption for plot of land separately in addition to the house. A proviso is not a separate or independent enactment as contended by Ld A.R, but it should be read along with the main provision as a whole, i.e., in construing an enactment containing a proviso, it is proper to construe the provisions together without making either of them redundant or otiose. A proviso must, therefore, be considered in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. It cannot be considered as an independent provision foreign to principal provision itself. We hold that the assessee cannot avail exemption for a plot of land, even if it is having an area of less than 500 sq. mts or less, if he had already claimed exemption of one house u/s 5(vi) of the Act. If the assessees have not claimed exemption of house, then they are entitled to claim exemption of either one house or part of a house or plot of land. We do not find merit in the contentions of the assessee and accordingly reject the same. - Decided against assessee. Issues:Challenging the validity of reopening of assessment and addition made under Wealth Tax Act.Analysis:The appeals were against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for the assessment year 2010-11. The AO reopened the assessment due to non-filing of wealth tax returns by the assessees after search operations. The AO assessed the value of plot and construction under progress as taxable wealth. The assessees challenged the reopening of assessment, but Ld CIT(A) upheld it, stating that the AO followed the correct procedure.On the merits, Ld CIT(A) held that the value of the building under construction is not liable to wealth tax, only the plot is taxable. The assessees argued that the plot's size was less than 500 sq. mts., exempt under sec. 5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. However, Ld CIT(A) disagreed, stating that wealth tax is payable for a plot exceeding 500 sq. mts. The appeals were dismissed based on this reasoning.During the hearing, the Ld A.R reiterated that the plot's size was below 500 sq. mts., thus exempt from wealth tax. The Ld D.R supported Ld CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that if exemption for a house is claimed, no separate exemption for a plot is allowed. The Tribunal analyzed sec. 5(vi) provisions, concluding that if exemption for a house is claimed, no separate exemption for a plot is permissible. The proviso to sec. 5(1)(vi) does not allow separate exemptions for a house and a plot. A proviso qualifies the main enactment and cannot be read independently. Thus, the assessees could not claim exemption for the plot separately if they had already claimed it for a house.Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the assessees' contentions, upholding Ld CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The appeals filed by both assessees were dismissed on 28th Sept, 2020.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
