TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty as on the relevant valuation date? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the value of the Mercedes Benz Car could not be included in the net wealth of the Assessee? 2. The necessary facts are that in the Wealth Tax Returns for Assessment Year 1992-93, the declared net worth was Rs. 35,29,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 16(3) by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) on 22.3.1995 at a net wealth of Rs. 70,10,34,244/-. The CIT(A) in the first round set aside the assessment order and directed it to be framed afresh, which the WTO did again on 17.9.1998. The Assessing Officer (AO) while concluding that the assets declared had to be assessed at a higher rate, took note of certain facts and concluded t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficial to include all payments for the use of the property by any nomenclature, the value of benefits or perquisites etc., obtained from a tenant or occupier. The said Rule reads as follows : "rent received or receivable" shall include all payments for the use of the property, by whatever name called, the value of all benefits or perquisites whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a tenant or occupier of the property and any sum paid by a tenant or occupier of the property in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the owner." 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the impugned order of the ITAT should not be disturbed. It was submitted that even though, the expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal was preferred before Tribunal. In the grounds of appeal no contention was taken that the agreement between Reliance as intermediary tenant is a sham and/or that it was a colourable device which may properly be called a device or a dubious method or a subterfuge clothed with apparent dignity. 8.1 From the order of the Tribunal also it does not appear that the issue of colourable exercise and/or sham contract was argued or raised. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Once the issue of sham and bogus contract had not been raised before the Tribunal the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) stood confirmed. From the judgment of the Tribunal the issue which is sought to be now contended or canvassed of sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been received than the annual letting value. In other words where the annual rent receivable was more than the annual letting value. On behalf of the Revenue considering the expression 'receivable' in Section 23(1)(b), learned Counsel seeks to contend that what has to be considered is the rent which is receivable as rent from the premises. It is, therefore, submitted that the rent which the tenant was receiving from Reliance would be the rent receivable. On the other hand on behalf of the assessee learned Counsel explains that the expression "receivable" is in the context of the rent reserved in terms of the agreement. As an illustration, it is submitted that if the rent received per annum is Rs. 12,000 even though Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts amendment. In that context the expression "receivable" would mean that though the annual value is fixed in terms of the agreement even though it is not received in the relevant year, yet the same would be assessable to tax in terms of the illustration given on behalf of the assessee. The contention, therefore, as urged on behalf of the Revenue on the construction of expression "receivable" will have to be rejected. 10. The issue whether the contract between Reliance and the intermediary tenant is a sham cannot be gone into as the question would not arise in the absence of it being in issue raised before the Tribunal. That question as framed does not therefore arise. Further as noted earlier it is not the contention of Revenue th....