TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals) - 6 [CWT (A)']; Re-opening: 3. erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957; 4. failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has made full and true disclosure of its Net Wealth and hence re-opening beyond four years is bad in law; 5.failed to appreciate that there was no fresh material available before learned Wealth Tax Officer ('WTO') for re-opening of assessment and hence reopening on the same set of facts is not tenable; On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the WTO; On value of impugned land 6. erred in objecting the order of Hon'ble CWT(A) on the ground that full value of impugned land to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the land. 1.1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CWT(A) is not justified in applying the value of the development right to value the land without such right. 1.2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CWT (A) erred in not appreciating that mere ownership of the land without the Development Rights has no value for the purpose of wealth tax. 1.3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CWT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in not giving cognizance to the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 stating that it has no relevance to the issue under consideration. 1.4.That on the facts and in the circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supply a copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening the completed assessment.AO supplied the copy of the reasons recorded by his predecessors on 25.09.2008 vide his letter dated 12.10.2009. Following are the reasons recorded by the AO for re-opening the assessment. ""It is seen from the records for A.Y. 2002-03 that the assessee during F.Y. 2000-01 was in possession of free hold land at Borivli, which was transferred to M/s. Kanakia Construction Co. for development prupose.The assessee had executed two agreements on 31.08.2001 and 13.02.2002 for Rs. 6,48,58,160/-(9750 sq.mts.) and Rs. 95,28,000/- (1863.50 sq. mts.) respectively. (However, sale deduction transfer of land was not registered hence assessee was owner of land for A.Y. 2002-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the developer. AO was of the opinion that conveyance deed of the said land was not executed during the year under consideration, that assessee had transferred only development rights, that the appellant was the owner of the land which was an asset u/s 2(ae) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, AO made an addition of Rs. 7.43 Crores towards the failure of the said land. 2.2.Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) challenging the order of the AO on validity of the re-opening as well as on merits. After considering the submission of the assessee and the re-opened assessment, FAA held that assessee had not disclosed material facts about the value of land owned by it in the net we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee had shown the capital gain on sale of plot of land in its return of income and had paid taxes accordingly, that in the notes accompanying the returns fact of sale of land was clearly mentioned.He relied upon the judgments of Shriram Foundry Ltd. (CTR 116 -Bom. HC),German Remdeis Ltd. (287 ITR 494-Bom.HC) and ICICI Bank Ltd. (246 CTR 292 -Bom.HC),Hemla Embroidery Mills(P) Ltd.(311 ITR 412 -P&H) Asian Paints Ltd.(308 ITR 195-Bom.HC),Radhe Developers (23 SOT 420 (Ahd Tribunal). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We are of the opinion that before deciding the issue on merits, the question of validity of re-assessment has to be decided. From the records it emerges that re-assessment proce....