2021 (9) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed for assessment year 2008-09 are reproduced as under:- "1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 51,00,000/- to the wealth of the appellant, made by the learned Assessing Officer with respect to the land purchased from Mr Balaji Prem Raj 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Wealt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid properties were treated as assets only and not as stock-in-trade. Therefore, he opined that properties were coming within the definition of asset as defined u/s.2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act,1957 and accordingly, included those assets for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act, and determined total taxable wealth at Rs. 3,57,57,335/- for assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 4,02,94,000/- for assessment year 2009-10. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before CWT(A). Before the learned CWT(A), the assessee has reiterated his arguments made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that entries in books of account is not relevant criteria to decide nature of asset, but what is relevant is nature of the asset....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies as stock-in-trade in the balance sheet is not a reason for considering those properties as assets within the definition of assets as defined u/s.2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. 1957. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand , strongly supporting order of the Assessing Officer as well as learned CWT(A), submitted that facts brought out by the authorities are very clear, as per which, assets were never intended to hold for the purpose of business, which is evident from the fact that all these assets were shown as investments in the books of account of the assessee. Had these assets were bought for the purpose of business, the assessee should have shown these assets under the head stock-in-trade. But, fact remains that these assets were neve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arguments of the learned A.R for the assessee for the simple reason that when the Assessing Officer has accepted profits earned from sale of said assets as income assessable under the head 'income from business or profession', then there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to treat said assets as investments only for the reason that those assets are not classified as stock-intrade in books of account of the assessee. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of various courts, as per which entries in the books of account is not relevant criteria to decide nature of asset or income or expenses, but what is relevant is nature of assets and intention of the assessee to hold such assets in the business of the assessee. In this cas....