2011 (7) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s regards to jurisdiction assumed by Assessing Officer u/s. 17 of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground No.1: "1)For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 existed and/or has been complied with and/or fulfilled on the part of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta 44, Kolkata in the instant case and the impugned order passed u/s. 16(3)/17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in pursuance of such notice as ab initio void, altra vires and null in law.". 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that he has instructions from assessee not to press this issue an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... addition to the tune of Rs. 27,93,420/- made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata to the net wealth of the appellant on the alleged premise of failure to produce evidence is wholly illogical, improper and illegal." 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer noticed that there is substantial cash in hand as per Balance Sheet of the assessee filed during the course of income-tax proceedings. The total cash in hand available in the business Balance Sheet of the assessee at Rs. 27,93,420/-. Accordingly, Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 17 r.w.s.16 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment and determined net wea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered against assessee and in favour of revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. R. Ushasree (2010) 229 CTR 52 (Ker), wherein it is observed as under: "Though not relevant, we are constrained to observe that there is nothing that stops the assessee from utilizing the cash in hand which may be business asset on the valuation date for any non-productive purpose on the next day. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that cash in hand of businessmen should be treated as productive asset also is meaningless." The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the aforesaid observation argued that on reading of the aforesaid observations, it would be evident that their Lordships has not washed out possibility of usi....