TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,467/- in the Net Wealth returned Rs. 63,903/- as assessed by the Dy. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Circle 8(1) New Delhi vide order passed u/s 16(3) read with Sec 17 dated 27-2-2013. The Reassessment made u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act is ab-intio illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Notice issued u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 dated 27-3-2012 is without prior approval of the Concerned Authority Commissioner of Wealth Tax which was obligatory to be obtained before issue of notice u/s 17. The satisfactions recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8 and Commissioner of Income Tax -III New Delhi is for issue of Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act vide Letter dated 23-3-2012 CIT(AO)III Delhi on the basis of Audit Objection for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and purchases. The Assessee is a Civil Contractor carrying On Construction Activity at various sites of the customers where poor Banking and other facilities are available. The keeping of Cash in hand in Assessee's nature of Business is necessary. The rejection of the claim for exemption by CIT(A) on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that the cash in hand is meant for discharging business liabilities is not justified. The outstanding business liabilities are reflected in the Audited Balance Sheet as on 31-03-2006 The addition is unwarranted. 6. That the sustained addition of Rs. 1, 26, 94,152/- in respect of Property B-21 Gitanjali New Delhi on which construction is not permitted by Appropriate Authority d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the assessee was proprietor of Ahluwalia Construction group. The assessee was issued notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act, 1957 on 27.03.2012 after recording the reasons and necessary approvals were obtained. The assessee was asked to file WT return, which the assessee filed. The reasons recorded for reopening the case are as under : "It is noticed that the assessee has shown cash in hand amounting to Rs. 58,89,037/- as per schedule 5 of balance sheet. The assessee has also shown immovable property which is liable to Wealth Tax amounting to Rs. 2,99,65,610/- (24,25,610 + 2,75,40,000). In addition to this assessee also has vehicles amounting to Rs. 5,20,658/-. The mistake resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 3,48,25,305/- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for Rs. 59616008/- for construction and the same was being used for office cum godown and subsequently, it was demolished in May, 2006. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the evidence on record produced by the assessee that it was being used for commercial purpose for godown, but he was of the view that it was the residential house. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated it as a part of net taxable wealth and added Rs. 59616008/- in the net wealth of the assessee. In respect of property No. B-11 at Gitanjali, New Delhi, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that initially it was owned by Mr. Purshottam Nath Nanda and Mr. Vishwanath Nanda, who inherited 50% share each of this property from their father late Sh. Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sanction has been rejected by the MCD. Therefore, it does not form part of the total taxable net wealth. The above property was being used for business purpose. In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it was submitted that the case was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding ownership of the property. He also invited our attention to the paper book and the High Court order. Therefore, being a disputed property, it cannot be considered as taxable net wealth. He submitted a paper book containing pages 1-80 along with compilation of case laws. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the case laws cited by the assessee are not applicable to the present case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication was made by the assessee on 07.10.2006 and rejection made by MCD is dated 08.09.2008, which dates do not fall within the impugned assessment year. Merely because construction plan was not sanctioned by MCD would not prove that the construction in the property is not permissible or is prohibited. The sanction plan was rejected because of the failure of MCD byelaws. If the assessee or the co-owner would have removed the encroachment or illegal construction of the property, the plan would have been sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that construction is not permitted in the impugned plot is not tenable and rejected. No any evidence is placed before us to substantiate that the said property was be....