2015 (11) TMI 912

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....struction as the same does not come under the purview of house, or part of a house. 2. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the ground of appeal at any time." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the WTO while assessing the Income Tax assessment for the assessment year 2006-07, came to know that the assessee had taxable wealth for the assessment year 2005-06 for which he was supposed to file Wealth Tax Return. The WTO therefore, after recording the reasons to believe that the wealth had escaped assessment issued notice u/s 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on 25.09.2009 and duly served upon the assessee but no return of wealth was filed in response to the said n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption for one house/property u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act if he had more than one house property. It was further stated that the AO wrongly applied the provisions of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act in disallowing the exemption to the assessee. It was further stated that as per the provisions of Section 5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, the assessee was entitled to claim the exemption of one house or a part of house or plot of land and the option of claiming exemption on account of either of two houses was at the option of the assessee. It was contended that the assessee claimed exemption from Wealth Tax on the plot no. 6, Mandakini Residential Scheme, New Delhi measuring 260.10 Sq. meters (less than 500 Sq. meters as provided in the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tc. are made in July, 2010. These documents prove that during the relevant period the said property was still under construction. The appellant has cited the judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Neena Jain (2010) 330 ITR 157 (P&H) according to which the value of the house under construction including investment on construction is not liable to wealth tax. The ratio of the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in not allowing exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has also wrongly applied section 2(ea)(i)(1). In the present case, the facts are entirely different and section 2(ea)(i)(1) cannot be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aced as well, because the word "any building" could not possibly be read in isolation and it had harmoniously to be construed with the remaining portion of section 2(ea) of the Act, i.e. whether the building was used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest house, because an incomplete building could not possibly either be used for residential or commercial purposes or for purposes of maintaining a guest house. Therefore, the word "building" had to be interpreted to mean a completely built structure having a roof, dwelling place, walls, doors, windows, electric and sanitary fittings etc. If one or more such components were lacking, then it could not possibly be said that the building was a complete st....