2016 (5) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ir parts. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that assessee has tangible assets in the form of land and vehicles and that assessee had not filed its return of net wealth though assessee was required to file the return of wealth. He, therefore issued notice u/s.17 of the Wealth Tax Act on 25.03.2013 asking the assessee to file the return of Wealth. In response to the notice, assessee filed the return of Wealth declaring net wealth of Rs. 28,35,600/-. Thereafter, notice u/s.16(2) fo the Act was issued and subsequently, assessment was framed u/s.16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and the total net wealth of the assessee was computed at Rs. 2,02,58,687/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of A.O. by holding as under: "4. I have carefully considered wealth tax order and submission filed by Appellant. The undisputed facts of the present case are that Appellant has acquired freehold land at Changodar for Rs. 1,74,23,087 during the year under consideration. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, Appellant has explained that on the above land, factory building and office have been constructed in subsequent Assessment Year and as land is used for industrial purpose, same is not an urban, land liable for wealth tax under Section 2(ea) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has treated such land as urban land and considered the same as par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....talization in books of account for subsequent Assessment Years. Even Appellant has not proved that construction was completed within two years from the date of acquisition of land. Considering these facts, land acquired by Appellant is an urban land liable for wealth tax under Section 2(ea) of the Act in the nutshell, addition of Rs. 1,74,23,067 is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 6.1 Before us, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the land was not chargeable to wealth tax for the reason that the land was purchased for construction of factory the building and the construction actually beg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent case is with respect to levy of wealth tax on the value of land purchased by the assessee. It is A.O's. contention that assessee is liable to pay wealth tax as the land is a vacant urban land. On the other hand, it is assessee's contention that assessee has incurred substantial expenditure on construction of factory building and in subsequent years the business of the assessee is being shown from that building. It is also assessee's submission that it had furnished the details of the construction expenses of factory building which has not been considered by CIT(A). Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to controvert the submissions of ld. A.R. We further find that there is no finding of ld. CIT(A) on the issue of inc....