TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Shri.Rajat Subhra Biswas, the Learned CIT DR argued on behalf of the revenue and Shri. Amit Kumar, ACA, the Learned AR argued on behalf of the assessee. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA is justified in deleting the value of factory shed and godown of Rs. 8,64,76,000/- for wealth tax purposes. 4. The brief facts of this appeal is that the assessee is a owner of a godown cum factory shed which was let out to M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd for utilization as a commercial establishment for the purpose of their business. The Learned AO found that the assessee was in receipt of rental income from its godown and factory shed situated at Raghudevpur N.H 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- "1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the net maintainable rent of the factory shed and go-down of Rs. 8,64,76,000/- made under Wealth Tax Act." 2. the appellant craves leave to amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this case." 5. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. In response to this, the Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of this tribunal in the case of DCWT vs M/s Hind Ceramics Pvt Ltd in WTA Nos. 42 & 43 (Kol) of 2010 dated 7.1.2011 and the decision of ACWT vs Merino Exports P Ltd in WTA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso had utilized the property for their commercial purposes. We hold that even if the property is utilized for commercial purposes by the tenant, still it is outside the ambit of wealth tax and assessee would automatically fall under the exclusion Clause No. 5 of section 2(ea)(1) of the Act. We find that this issue is covered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of ACWT vs Merino Exports P Ltd in WTA Nos. 14-16/kol/2011 dated 10.9.2012, wherein the ground raised before this tribunal, facts of the case and the decision rendered thereon are reproduced below:- "3. The brief facts of this issue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment u/s.16(3)/17 of the W.T Act, 1957 the AO included an amount of Rs. 28,66,913/- unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being used by the assessee for its own business. Hence, considering above and the submission of the ld.A.r it is held that the land located at Bahadurgarh (UPCL), Bahadurgarh(Emkay)/ and the showroom located at Nagpur is not a taxable wealth as per provision of the Wealth Tax Act. Accordingly the addition of the value of these assets made by the AO is deleted. The appellant will get necessary relief accordingly." 6.1 On careful perusal of the above, we are of the view that since the act has not specified that the assessee himself has to use the said property in order to get exemption u/s. 2(ea) of the WT Act we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) to be interfered with. Therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss the revenue's app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the business but it was an additional requirement that the said building etc. should be used by the assessee for the purpose of its business only. Similarly, the case of ITAT Kolkata Bench (supra) relied on by the ld. Departmental Representative relates to assessment year 1986-87. It is relevant to state that the definition of asset as applicable to the assessment years under consideration viz. 2003-04 & 2004-05 has been amended by the Finance Act (No.2), 1996 with effect from 01.04.1997 and subsequently items 4 & 5 were inserted by the Finance Act (No.2) 1998 with effect from 01.04.1999. therefore, the definition of asset in relation to assessment year under consideration as per provisions of Section 2(ea) commencing on the 1st day of....