TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circumstances of the case and erred in not allowing exemption from net wealth for the Properly at Saidapet - Rs. 3,330,90,000/- and the Property at Nungambakkam - Rs. 1,40,00000/-. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the (act that the property at Saidapet is a commercial property purchased in the name of a partnership firm M/s Venkateshwara Combines wherein the appellant was a 50% partner. Hence the property cannot be directly treated as wealth in the hands of the Partner. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering that the property at Saidapet is a commercial establishment and is a productive asset and is not a residential house property and therefore is squarely covered under the exemption u/s 2(ea}(1)(5)and does not form part of net wealth 4. The ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in no' considering that the property at Haddows Road was used by the appellant for her business purpose, the appellant was the proprietor at MIS Lava corporation doing consultancy and Textile business for which the assessee used the property at Haddows Road as her office premises. 5. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rutland Gate, therefore, notice u/s.17 of the Act dated 30.03.2012 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to notice, the assessee filed letter dated 26.04.2012 and requested to provide copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and also requested to treat the returns filed u/s.14 of the Act may be returns filed in response to notice issued u/s.17 of the Act. The case has been selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, assessed taxable wealth of Rs. 7,36,10,887/- by making additions towards 50% of share in Saidapet property and 20% of share in Haddows Road property amounting to Rs. 3,30,90,000/- and Rs. 1,40,00,000/- respectively. The Assessing Officer has also made addition in respect of Rutland Gate property and three motor vehicles along with cash balance of Rs. 14,73,028/- to net wealth. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under:- " In the return of wealth filed by the assessee for AY.2008-09 on 23.07.2010 admitting a net wealth of Rs. 2,34,38,192/-, the net wealth included property at Saidapet and Nungambakkam, Chennai. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions made towards property at Saidapet on the ground that said property was owned by partnership firm M/s.Venkateshwara Combines, and the same cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee . The assessee has also challenged the addition made towards Saidapet property on the ground that said property has been used for own business of proprietary concern of M/s. Laya Corporation, which is doing consultancy and textile business and hence, as per section 2(ea)(1)(v) of the Act, once assessee occupies property for the purpose of business carried on by her, then same is exempt from definition of assets. Similarly, the assessee has challenged disallowance of liability relating to Rutland Gate property and argued that assessee has purchased property at Rutland Gate through loans availed from different parties through account payee cheque and the same has been accepted during the income tax assessment proceedings and hence, liability for purchase of asset should be deducted to arrive at net wealth for the purpose of tax. 8. The learned CWT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of copy of partnership deed of M/s .Venkateshwara Combine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the hands of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that the learned CWT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that property at Saidapet is commercial establishment and productive asset , which is used for own business of the assessee and eligible for exemption u/s. 2(ea)(1)(v) of the Act and does not form part of net wealth for wealth tax purpose. The learned AR further submitted that assets standing in the name of partnership firm cannot be considered directly in the hands of the partner. If at all any addition is required to be made, the same may be by ascertaining value of interest in the partnership firm. As regards property of Saidapet , value adopted by the Assessing Officer is on higher side. Hence the appeals filed by the assessee may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments by ascertaining correct value of property in the name of partnership firm and the property at Saidapet. 10. The learned D.R., on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the learned CWT(A) submitted that the learned CWT(A) has brought out clear facts to the effect that property at Saidapet and property at Haddows Road were included by the assessee ....