2009 (2) TMI 411 - HC - Wealth-tax

Assessee denied exemption, court rules in favor of tax assessment.

The court held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under sections 2(ea)(i)(3) and 2(ea)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for cashew factory ... Exemption- The assessee was getting rent for the cashew factory building leased out to a firm of which the assessee was a partner. The question to be considered was whether leasing out of the factory buildings to a firm of which the assessee was a partner could be treated as occupation of building for the purpose of any business or profession carried out by such assessee. Held that- the building ceased to be eligible for exemption at the hands of the assessee when it was leased out on rent. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to exemption for the leased factory building u/s 2(ea)(i)(3) of the Act. Issues:1. Entitlement to exemption under sections 2(ea)(i)(3) and 2(ea)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for cashew factory buildings leased out to a firm.2. Consideration of exemption claimed under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act for one house.Analysis:1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the entitlement to exemption under sections 2(ea)(i)(3) and 2(ea)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for cashew factory buildings leased out to a firm. The Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee was entitled to exemption based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions. The respondent, as the owner, had leased the factory buildings to a firm in which they were a partner. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and the CIT (Appeals) order in favor of the assessee. However, the appellant argued that the leasing out of the building on rent disqualifies it from exemption under the Act. The court emphasized that the exemption is for buildings used by the assessee for their own business or profession, not for buildings leased out at market rates. The court concluded that the assessee, by leasing the building to a firm, did not meet the requirement for exemption, as the business was carried out by the firm, not the assessee personally. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, reversing the Tribunal's order and restoring the assessment.2. Another issue raised in the judgment pertains to the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act for one house. The Tribunal did not consider this exemption claim, which was based on the argument that any building, not necessarily a residential one, should be eligible for exemption under the Act. The Assessing Officer had not addressed this claim either. The court directed the Assessing Officer to review the claim and grant exemption for one building if it meets the criteria set forth in the Act. This issue highlights the importance of considering all relevant exemption provisions under the Act and ensuring a thorough assessment of the eligibility criteria for each claim made by the assessee.