AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, reference is being made to the facts and issue in WTA No.28/PUN/2016 to adjudicate the issue. 3. The Revenue in WTA No.28/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee has mortgaged the properties for the loan obtained by the Company Ram Infrastructure Ltd. Thus the loan was not obtained by the assessee in his individual capacity, hence the same could not be said to be debts owed. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assets had been mortgaged only as a "Security" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng had moved an application under Rules 27 of the ITAT Tribunal Rules, which reads as under:- "Whether the learned CWT(A) was justified in law and on facts in confirming the valuation of asset for the purpose of Wealth Tax at value as per Govt Approved Valuer"s report filed for obtaining loan from bank as against the value shown by the appellant in the returns of wealth on the basis of value of the property for stamp duty purpose." 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had not furnished any return of wealth. The Assessing Officer received information from the Joint CIT, Range-2, Jalgaon vide letter dated 19.08.2011, consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 17 of the Act on 30.03.2012. In response....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's share of 50% worked out to Rs. 29,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer considered the difference in valuation of Rs. 27,11,868/- as an amount of valuation not offered for taxation. Where the assessee had accepted the valuation for the purpose of pledging his assets for loan to be availed by the company M/s. Ram Infrastructure Ltd., the valuation done by the Government Approved Valuer was considered as fair market value for arriving at the correct valuation for the Wealth Tax purposes. Accordingly, the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) added sum of Rs. 27,11,868/- as wealth of assessee. 7. The CWT(A) considered the first aspect of the issue of higher valuation being adopted by the Assessing Officer and also took note of the contention of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of CWT(A). 9. The assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Tribunal Rules. 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of ACWT Vs. Shri Pradeep Dinkar Nehete in WTA Nos.02 to 06/PN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, order dated 19.02.2016, wherein the valuation of assets at Jalgaon was enhanced by the Assessing Officer on the basis of valuation report found. The Tribunal noted the fact that the value of property shown in the valuation report was deliberately taken on higher side in order to obtain higher loan. The Tribunal upheld the view of CWT(A) in adopting the value of property declared by the assessee as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused the record. The issue arising in the present bunch appeals is against valuation of assets owned by the assessee in Jalgaon. The Assessing Officer in-charge of the assessment proceedings of assessee had received information by way of valuation report of Government Approved Valuer, wherein the plot of land which is jointly owned by the assessee was valued at Rs. 59,50,000/-, half share at Rs. 29,75,000/-. On the basis of said information, the assessment proceedings were initiated in the case of assessee by issue of notice under section 17 of the Act. The assessee in response thereto filed return of wealth, wherein the value of half share in the said property was declared by the assessee at Rs. 2,12,320/-. The claim of assessee before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of the property for stamp duty purposes. First of all, the perusal of Form No.E filed before the CWT(A) reflects that the issue raised by the assessee was against the order of WTO in making addition of Rs. 27,62,680/- to the net wealth of assessee and further in not giving exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act. However, the CWT(A) decided the issue on a ground which was not raised before him i.e. in holding that the value of loan against assets pledged with bank for obtaining loan was deductible under section 2(m) of the Act. No such issue was raised before the CWT(A). The issue which needs to be adjudicated by the CWT(A) was the valuation of property. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that in connected case of ACWT Vs. Shri ....