TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustrial Area, Delhi, and hotel site in Chandigarh did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and hence could not be assessed, as such in his hands merely on the ground that these have not been transferred in his name particularly when the assessee had made full consideration of the value of the property but did not get it transferred intentionally/otherwise and had also subsequently declared it as an asset in his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1995-96 under similar circumstances ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the flat in Reviera Apartment Delhi, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in its letter dated November 25, 1968, acknowledging the receipt of cheque and also confirmed having delivered the possession of the same to the assessee. However, according to the assessee, since no formal agreement has been executed between the assessee and Reviera Apartments, so, according to him as per section 2 (m) of the Wealth-tax Act, the property did not belong to the assessee on the valuation dates as no sale deed has been executed as enjoined in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, it is not assessable in the hands of Reivera Apartments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The a e has strongly relied on Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (Late) v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 (SC). In the above noted case, the assessee, the Nizam o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court held as under: "Therefore, the fact that the Legislature has deliberately and significantly not used the expression 'assets owned by the assessee' but 'assets belonging to the assessee', in our opinion, is an aspect which has to be borne in mind." In CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625, the Supreme Court interpreted the word "owner" of the house as defined under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 9 of the old Act, 1922, whereas in the instant case, we are concerned with the expression "belonging" to the assessee under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and not with the expression "owner" used under sections 22 to 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In other words, liability to pay wealth-tax arise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal observed as under: "In this ground, the contention of the assessee is that he is not the owner of the Okhla plot, Delhi, since no conveyance has been executed in favour of the assessee and the plot had not been handed over to him by the DDA till August, 1984. So this plot in Okhla Industrial Area did riot belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and so this plot cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. However, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), on the basis of the order passed in respect of the flat of the assessee in Reviera Apartments came to the conclusion that this plot also belonged to the assessee within the meaning of section 2....