TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessable wealth of the assessee. It represents value of industrial plots and building. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that the ld.First Appellate Authority has deleted this addition by observing that similar addition was made in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 which has been deleted by the ld.CWT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and the order of the CWT(A) has been upheld by the Tribunal in WTA No.2/Ahd/2012. The ld.CWT(A) has reproduced the order of the ITAT which contained the order of the ld.CWT(A) passed in the Asstt.Year 2005-06. The ld.DR was unable to controvert the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee. 3. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. It emerge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealth Tax Law. He computed value thereof as Rs. 7,32,55,588/- as per Rent Capitalization under schedule-III/B of the Act, deducted basic exemption of Rs. 15 lacs and computed the taxable wealth under the provisions of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,17,55,588/- in question. He framed assessment accordingly vide order dated 14- 12-2010. 3. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT (A) has accepted its contentions on merits as under:- "2.2 I have carefully considered rival submissions. I have also perused assessment order and the evidences submitted by Id. A.R. I have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the Id. A.R. After taking into entirety of facts in view, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the Id. A.R. fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v/s. DCVVT reported in 112 TTJ (,Pune)J89, wherein it was held: "Sub-cl. (5) covers any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes. In order to cover a case under sub cl.(5), it is not necessary that the property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes should be occupied by the assessee for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him as in the case covered by sub-cl (3). Here, the nature and purpose of use of the property is material irrespective of the fact whether it is used or occupied either by the assessee himself or anybody else for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by them, as the case may be. To claim benefit of the sub cl.(5), one must prove and estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the considered view that industrial plots owned by the appellant and let out to sister concerns for industrial use are exempt from wealth-tax as per express provisions of section 2(ea)(5) of the W.T. Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 7,32,55,588/- made by the A.O. in the net wealth of the appellant is ordered to be deleted. These grounds of appeals are allowed." This leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the case file. It has come on record that the assessee has been letting out its plots in question to its sister concern in lieu of charging rent. The Revenue does not rebut this crucial finding. The assessee filed copy of the tribunal's order dated 17.4.2015 in income tax pr....