2020 (10) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are identical in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the validity of reopening of assessment and also in partially sustaining the addition made by the AO under Wealth Tax Act. 3. Smt. Gowri Mallikarjuna is the wife of Shri D U Mallikarjuna. Consequent to the search and seizure operations conducted in the hands of Sri D.U. Mallikarjuna on 15.3.2016 u/132 of the Income tax Act, it came to the notice of the revenue that both the above said assessees have not filed return of wealth. Accordingly, the AO (Wealth Tax Officer) reopened the assessment of the year under consideration in the hands of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment order that the reasons have been furnished. Accordingly, it was prayed that the AO may be directed to furnish the reasons recorded by him for making effective representation. The said plea of the assessee was rejected by Ld CIT(A) by observing that the AO has duly followed the procedure prescribed in this regard. 6. We heard the parties on this legal issue. We notice that the AO has mentioned in the assessment order that he has duly recorded the reasons and the same was served upon the assessee. This observation of the AO, in the absence of any other contrary material, has to be considered as true. Before us also, the assessee did not furnish any material to disprove the observations made by the AO. Accordingly, we agree with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... did not accept the contentions of the assessee. He decided this issue against the assessees. The observations made by Ld CIT(A) in this regard in the case of Shri D U Mallikarjua are extracted below:- "6.2 I have considered the submissions made and the materials on record. The first contention of the appellant is that the aforesaid site and building under construction would be exempt by virtue of the proviso to Section 5 (vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. It is contended that the wealth tax is not payable in respect of an "asset" being a plot of land comprising an area of 500 sq. mets or less. It is argued that only urban land exceeding 500 sq. mtrs., would be liable for wealth tax. I am not inclined to agree with the appellant's view si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, the wealth tax is payable on the value of those assets specified in sec. 2(ea) of the Wealth tax Act. However, section 5 of the Wealth tax Act provides exemption from payment of wealth tax from amongst the assets so specified u/s 2(ea), i.e., even if the assets fall under the category of specified assets, still no wealth tax is payable on the value of assets specified in sec. 5 of the Wealth tax Act. 13. In these cases, we are concerned with the provisions of sec.5(vi) of the Act. As per the said provision wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee, viz., (vi) one house or part of a house or a plot of land belong....