M/s. Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd., Lucknow V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 175/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2797 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A M AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JM W TA NO. 37/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1994 - 95 W TA NO. 38/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1998 - 99 W TA NO. 39/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1999 - 00 W TA NO. 40/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2000 - 01 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLE - 6, NEW DELHI VS M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (UP) (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA DCS447 1 K W TA NO. 34/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLE - 6, NEW DELHI VS M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIG ANJ, LUCKNOW (UP) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADCS4481 M CO NO. 299/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1994 - 95 CO NO. 300/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1998 - 99 CO NO. 301/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1999 - 00 CO NO. 302/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2000 - 01 M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (UP) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLE - 6, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADCS4471K W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 2 CO NO. 175/DEL/201 4 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD., 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (UP) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLE - 6, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADCS4481M ASSESSEE BY : SH. DINESH VERMA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.01 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 .02 .201 7 ORDER PER BENCH : T HESE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CWT(A) - I, NEW DELHI EACH DATED 14.05.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994 - 95, 1997 - 98 TO 2000 - 01 AND DATED 21.09.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009 - 10 . 2. SINCE THE ISSUE S INVOLVED ARE COMMON AND THE APPEALS ALONGWITH THE CO S WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 3 3. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL APP EAL IN WTA NO. 37/DEL/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 95. F OLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE BUILDING WHICH HAD BEEN VALUED BY T HE AO AT RS. 1,90,34,883/ - AS EXEMPT FROM WEALTH TAX U/S 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT WHEREAS IT HAD BEEN VALUED AND VERIFIED BY THE AO THAT BUILDING WAS NOT USED FOR ANY OF FICIAL PURPOSE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE BUILDING AS COVERED U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT EVEN THOUGH SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE BELATED L ETTER BEYOND TIME FOR FILING RETURN. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE V ALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 7, KAPOORTHALA HOUSE, LUCKNOW, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE OFFICIAL PURPOSES AND DID NOT FALL IN THE W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 4 AMBIT OF TAXABLE ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 . 5. IN OTHER APPEALS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998 - 99, 2000 - 01 AND 2009 - 10 RELATES TO THE VALUATION OF THE LAND SITUATED AT VI LLAGE BAK K AS, MASTEMAU KHURD AT SULTANPUR ROAD, TEHSIL MOHANLALGA N J, DISTT. LUCKNOW CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SITUA TED OUTSIDED 8 KM FROM THE LIMIT OF THE MUNICI P A L CORPORATION. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THESE ISSUE S HA VE ALREADY BEEN SETTLED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2004 PASSED BY THE ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH A IN WTA NO. 3/LUC/2002 AND CO NO. 63/LUC/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN WTA NO. 1/2006 BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AT NEW DELHI WHER EIN VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2007, T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT WAS AFFIRMED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DATED 20.03.2007 OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED SLP(CIVIL) CC 4346/2008 BEFORE THE HON BLE APEX COUR T WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2008. THE SLP WAS DISMISSED (COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER S WERE W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 5 FURNISHED WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD). THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN WTA NO. 1/2006 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2007 , IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: TWO ISSUES HAVE ARISEN IN THIS APPEAL. ONE IS WHETHER THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN THE URBAN LIMITS SO AS TO MAKE IT INCLUDIBLE IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. A FINDING OF FA CT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LAND IS MORE THAN 20 KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE URBAN LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LUCKNOW AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX. TH E SECOND ISSUE THAT HAS ARISEN IS THAT WHETHER THE BUILDING BEARING NO. 7 KAPOORTHALA, LUCKNOW WAS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND, AGAIN AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HIMSELF EXCLUDED THE BUILDING FOR COMPUTING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 6 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW HIS OWN ORDERS. ON BOTH T HE ISSUES, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT N O ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BY THE DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION. DISMISSED. 8 . THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF SLP BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CC 4346/2008 WHER EIN VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2008, T HE SLP WAS DISMISSED BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO REASON T O INTER FERE ON THE FACT OF THIS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOW SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE SE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT. W TA NOS. 37 TO 40 /DEL /201 0 & 34/DEL/2013 COS. 299 TO 302 /DEL/2010 & 1 75/DEL/2014 SAHARA INDIA FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. 7 9 . AS REGARDS TO THE CO S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS THE INSTRUCTION NOT TO PRESS THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND GAVE IN WRITING AS UNDER: SINCE THE MATTER STANDS COVERED BY ORD ER OF HON BLE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR, CO S STAND WITHDRAWN COPIES ENCLOSED FOR RECORD AND PERUSAL. SD/ - (DINESH VERMA) ADVOCATE 30.01.2017 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CO S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED AS WITHDRAWN. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON O UNCE D IN THE COURT ON 02 /02 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI ) (N. K. SAI NI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 02 /0 2 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR