TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in excluding Flat at Mumbai valued of Rs. 23,05,730/- on the basis of assessee's submission without calling for a Remand Report from the A.O thereby violating the provision of the Rule 46A of IT Rule, 1962." 3. The Assessee is a company. It owned a property at Mumbai viz., Flat in Rishikesh Apartments, No.4, Veer Savakar Marg, Mumbai-400 028, hereinafter referred to as 'the Mumbai property". The question before the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) was as to whether the aforesaid flat should be considered as asset within the meaning of the definition of Ässet"specified in Sec.2(ea)(i) clause (3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act) and forming part of the "Net Wealth" of the Assessee for the purpose of levy of wealth tax. 4. The definition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty as company office. He was mainly posted at Mumbai to gather maximum business information. He used to vist many business offices of real estate developers, real estate agents, share broker firms, commodities broker firms and finance, investment and portfolio consultancy firms periodically and gather information on the basis of which the Assessee had acted in Kolkata. Shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd., United Credit Ltd., Taurus Mutual Fund were sold according to his information and the Assessee had earned a substantial amount there from. Mr.Mukherjee used to send regular reports to the Directors of the Assessee at Kolkata on the basis of which the Assessee acted. Copies of correspondences between the Assessee and Mr.Subrata Mukherjee wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the Assessee and therefore it was not "Ässet" which can be included while computing the Net Wealth of the Assessee. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CWT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. 10. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR who relied on the order of the WTO and reiterated the stand of the Revenue in the grounds of appeal that there was violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in as much as the CWT(A) has taken note of contract notes evidence transactions in shares carried on by the Assessee at Mumbai without confronting such evidence to the WTO and calling for a remand report from him. The learned AR relied on the order of the CWT(A). 11. After considering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the A.O. thereby violating the provision of the Rule 46QA of IT rules, 1962" 13. The WTO noticed that Agricultural land at Bombay Road valued at Rs. 3,06,582 was consistency declared as asset in the wealth tax returns by the Assessee upto AY 2005-06 but did not declare the same in the WT returns for AY 06-07. The claim of the Assessee that the aforesaid land was not an Urban land within the meaning of the Act and therefore ought not to have been considered as "Asset" for the purpose of determining "Net Wealth" of the Assessee was rejected by the WTO. 14. The CWT(A) however held that there is no estoppel against statute and that if the land in question is not Ürban Land" than notwithstanding the fact that it was declared in ....