2016 (5) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 2. The Revenue's identical substantive grounds pleaded in the two instant appeals read as under:- "1a) The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts to hold that the property @ Delhi taken on lease was not includible in Assessee's net wealth without verifying the most relevant factor being period of lease to decide as to whether the same was in the nature of creating right in Assessee's hand. 1b) The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleing the addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- made for Baroda house property and allowing the Assessee's claim u/s.5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act for Baroda house proper....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....warani Sohinder Nabha. The assessee's case accordingly was that the Assessing Officer ought not to have treated this Delhi house as exempted. The CWT(A) accepts this arguments as under :- "5. I have perused the facts as enumerated by A.O. in the asstt. order and as submitted by appellant. After careful consideration of facts, submission, the adjudication of grounds are as follows : All the grounds by appellant is against the treatment of Baroda property of appellant as taxable wealth and not allowing exemption to property as per section 5(vi) of the wealth tax Act on the ground that appellant's one residential property at Delhi Viz 26, Golf Link, 1st Floor, New Delhi is exempt but the same was a let out property i.e. a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erty is treated as not owned and not an asset taxable to wealth for appellant, the appellant had a choice to treat one of the two property at Ahmedabad and Baroda as his residence for which he opted for Baroda property. It is therefore addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- for Baroda property wealth by W.T.O. is not justified and sustainable. He is directed to delete such addition and allow the appellant the claim u/s 5(vi) of the W.T. Act for Baroda property. 6. In result the appeal is allowed." 6. We have heard both parties. Leaned representatives appearing at the Revenue's and assessee's behest reiterates their respective pleadings. Learned departmental representative strongly argues that the Assessing Officer had rightly included abov....