2016 (1) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 29.12.2010 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of Revenue and DR filed the adjournment application for 16 cases. The bulk adjournment in 16 cases is not accepted. So we decided to hear these cases where we find that the hearing is possible without appearance of Ld. DR on the part of Revenue. However, in the present cases, we find that these are old appeals and has been fixed for hearing as many as eight times (including today's hearing). Hence, we rejected the adjournment application and proceeded for hearing Ld. AR, Shri Miraj D Shah appearing on behalf of assessee. 3. Since the issues raised by assessee in these appeals relate to common issue, therefore, we are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of the case are that assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in trading business of wood. During the course of assessment proceeding AY 2007-08, Assessing Officer found that assessee has declared in its balance-sheet for the year ending 31st March 2003, land and building for a value of Rs. 71,66,775/- (cost of land Rs. 19,96,475/- and cost of building of Rs. 51,70,300/-). The land & building was located at P-214, Lake Town, Block- A, Kolkata-700 089. AO sought explanation from the assessee for not showing such land & building in the wealth tax returns, the assessee explained that aforesaid land & building has been used exclusively by the Director of the company for residential purposes. Therefore the land & building was used fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the purview of wealth Tax Act. However, Ld. CIT has disregarded the claim of assessee by stating that assessee's submission is silent about the debt which was allowed in the due course of assessment proceeding made by AO. Therefore, Ld. CIT held that the debt of Rs. 71 lakh ought to have been disallowed and directed the AO to look into the issue afresh and pass necessary order according to law. 6. Aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT assessee preferred second appeal before us. 7. We have heard Ld. AR and perused the materials available on record. Ld. AR submitted the paper book which is running pages 1 to 8 and stated that issue of debt was duly considered by AO. So, the order passed by AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the Reven....