TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... balance sheet and business asset not taxable under the provisions of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. For this, the Revenue has raised the following Ground Nos.2 & 2.1, as under: "2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that cash on hand as per the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2004 is exempt from cash. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact in the case of individuals cash in hand in excess of Rs.50,000/- taxable asset in view of the provisions of Section 2(ea); irrespective of the fact whether the cash was recorded in the books of accounts or not." 4. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessee has claimed cash in hand in his personal of Rs.15,000/- and a further cash in hand of Rs.27,70,521/- which was disclosed in the books of accounts as on 31.03.2004 that is the business asset claimed by the Assessee. The Assessee is engaged in the business of Cine Actor and Distribution of Films. For this business, he is maintaining the business books of accounts and as per the books of accounts he was having cash in hand of Rs.27,70,521/-. The Assessing Officer assessed h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered in paragraph Nos.9 to 13, as under: "We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The only grievance of the Assessee raised in this Wealth Tax Appeal is against the finding of the learned CIT(A) treating the cash in hand held by the Assessee in his sole proprietorship concern M/s Kargil Bullion as a taxable asset liable for wealth tax. 10. We observe that the assessee is into business of trading in Bullion and runs sole proprietorship concern M/s Kargil Bullion. Books of accounts are regularly. maintained and the financial statements are audited. In the balance sheet placed at page 7 of the paper book, cash and bank balance is shown at Rs.6,51,62,401.97 /- and its bifurcation is given of page 8 showing that other than the bank balance. The assessee was having cash in hand at Jalgaon, at Rs.7,61,822/- and cash in hand at Indore at Rs.4,83,76,696/-. The total cash in hand as on 31.03.2007 in books of Kargil Bullion stood at Rs. 4,91,38,518 / - . 11. As far as, the issue that whether the alleged amount is a business asset or not, there is hardly any dispute on the part of the Revenue Authorities that the alleged cash i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. However, we find from the perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the assessee therein, never argued for application of global valuation of the business in terms of Rule 14 Schedule III of the Rules for determining the value of assets. It is an admitted fact that cash in hand in the sum of Rs. 48,81,761/- in the instant case represents the cash belonging to the proprietary concern of the assessee and hence it is a business asset for the assessee. The said cash along with other eligible business asset had to be subjected to valuation for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act only in terms of Rule 14 Schedule III of the Rules. Hence we find that the assessee had rightly included the said cash of Rs. 48,81,761/- as part of his workings under global valuation of the business asset in terms of Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rules. We also find that the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bimal Kr. Singh vs. DCWT, Circle-44, Kolkata in WTA No. 13/Kol/ 2010 for assessment year 2006-07 dated 20.07.2011 is directly on this point wherein it was held that the cash balance generat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quarely covered and the Assessee's cash in hand of Rs.27,05,521/- pertains to business and is kept as cash in hand as in the balance sheet of the business of the Assessee, the same cannot be treated as an asset u/s.2(ea) of the Act. Hence, this issue in the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. The next issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of the urban land at T.Nagar, Chennai. For this the Revenue raised Ground No.3 & 3.1 which is reproduced as under: "3. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of the urban land at T. Nagar. 3.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the value of the land and building under construction as on the valuation date is taxable as the same is outside the purview of Schedule - III." 9. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessee is the owner of the land at Rajachar Street, T. Nagar, Chennai upon which the building is being constructed. The Assessee claims the same as exempt but the Assessing Officer treated this property as the asse....