2016 (4) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are stated in brief. Assessees herein are co-sharers of certain properties. They have originally not filed any returns of wealth for the years under appeal, though in response to the notices issued under S.17 of the Act, they ultimately filed returns of wealth for the years under appeal. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments under S.16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, assessing the net wealth of the assessee, Shri Bhadra Reddy at Rs. 7,33,60,829 as against returned wealth of Rs. 10,17,290 for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs. 7,70,16,054 as against returned wealth of Rs. 4,79,610 for the assessment year 2009-10, and the net wealth of the assessee, Shri Mahender Reddy, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Therefore, an opinion was formed that there was a difference of wealth to an extent of Rs. 11,41,96,065 for assessment year 2007-08 and Rs. 17,96,46,365 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the cases of Shri Bhadra Reddy; and there was a difference of wealth of Rs. 6,15,18,028 for assessment year 2007-08 in the case of Shri Chamakura Mahender Reddy. Consequently, the Pr. Commissioner was of the view that, the assessments framed in these cases were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and accordingly issued notices for revision under S.25(2)of the Act. Though there was no response from the assessees to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, ultimately, during the course of hearing before her, Authorised Representat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddy, were subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal, and the Tribunal vide its common order dated 22.1.2016, has set aside the same with the following observations.- "6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. It is a fact that AO enhanced the value of agricultural land shown by assessee by 25%, without any discussion. It is also a fact that Ld. CIT(A) analysed the contentions of assessee in AY. 2007-08 and also in 2009-10 so as to give a finding that the lands-in-question are agricultural lands and therefore, cannot be considered as 'capital assets' for the purpose of wealth tax. In fact the orders of the CIT(A) are dated 25-02-2015 and 26-02-2015, whereas the impugned orders were p....