TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the manufacture of glass to M/s. Borosil Glass Works Ltd., Mumbai. The assessee filed returns for the assessment year 1997-98 admitting loss of Rs. 8,36,335/- and for the assessment year 1998-99 showing income of Rs. 1,02,09,606/-. The Assessing Officer while going through the statement filed along with the return of income and the TDS certificate issued by M/s. Borosil Glass Woks Ltd., Mumbai found that the assessee had received rental income of Rs. 9,75,000/- and Rs. 72,00,000/- for the land and building leased out to M/s.Borosil Glass Works Ltd., Mumbai. According to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (('the Act' for short), any building or land appurtenant thereto used for commercial purpose attracts levy of wealth-tax.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CWT(Appeals). It was submitted before the CWT(Appeals) that the notice issued under section 17 was not valid. The CWT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that in the present case the assessee had not filed return of wealth for the assessment years under consideration. Therefore, the CWT(Appeals) held that neither the return was processed under section 16(1) nor any assessment order under section 16(3) was passed and accordingly confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 17 of the Act is not valid and it is based on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the notice u/s 17 of the Act based on the audit objection. How the assessee came to the conclusion that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was based on the objection of the audit, is not known. No material has been pointed out by the assessee that the notice u/s 17 of the Act was based on the basis of the audit objection. We find that the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Indian Eastern Newspaper Society (supra) has no application to the facts of the assessee's case and the assessee has neither filed the return nor it was processed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind after issuing the notice u/s 17of the Act. Therefore the question of change of opinion does ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reveals that it is only rental income and it goes to say that this premise is neither used for the assessee's residence nor for assessee's business purposes. The impugned premises clearly falls within the definition of 'asset' in sec. 2(ea) of the Act. Part of the premises which is stated to be used by the assessee for the business is not taken into account for computing the wealth of the assessee. The Assessing Officer as per Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act has valued the property at Rs. 8,50,00,000/- and accordingly taxable wealth was determined. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CWT(Appeals). Before the CWT(Appeals) it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed wealth-tax in the hand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him" is excluded from the "assets" for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act. In the present case the assessee has neither occupied the land and building for the purpose of its business nor carried on the profession. 12. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The case of the assessee is that it owned land, building and machinery and the same were given to M/s. Borosail Glass Works Ltd., Mumbai and received rental income. The same was shown as business income. According to the assessee the above asset owned by it does not come within the purview of the definition "assets" in sec. 2(ea) ....