Smt. RAMADEVI GUPTA W/o. SHRI DURGASHANKAR GUPTA, Khandwa V. THE ACWT, Khandwa

CO 48/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2966 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI; S N AGRAWAL

Judgement Text

WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W.T.A. NO. 2/IND/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHANDWA :: APPELLANT VS SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA KHANDWA PAN AFQPG-1906C :: RESPONDENT CO NO. 48/IND/2016 ARISING OUT OF WTA NO. 2/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA KHANDWA :: OBJECTOR VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED - DR !' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL & SHRI PANKAJ MOGRA # $ '% DATE OF HEARING 21. 3 .2017 &'() '% DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 4 . 4 .2017 WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `2 / O R D E R PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREAS TH E CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 29.4.2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. IT- 36/14-15/281 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS TH AT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AC TION OF APPLICABILITY OF WEALTH TAX ON THE LAND FOR WHICH NO RENT IS RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR, UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE GAVE HER LAND ON LEASE TO M/S KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. THE AO HA S DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN BROGHT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAD FILED LE ASE DEED DATED 26.12.09 IN REGARD TO THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO DISCLOSE THE RENTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LEASING THE SAID LA ND UPTO THE A.Y. WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `3 2011-12. IT IS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO THAT FROM A.Y.2012- 13, THE LEASE RENT OF RS.60,000/- P.M. HAS BEEN DIS CLOSED. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE AO THAT LEA SE RENT AND LEASING THE LAND WAS AFTER THOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT JUST TO AVOID THE WEALTH TAX. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E COPY OF ONE LEASE DEED DATED 26-12.2009' HAS BEEN FILED- IN-WHICH THE LAND HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S KBANDWA) INDUSTRIES FOR WHICH LEASE RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON VERIFICATION FROM COPI ES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COMPUTATION FILED ALONGWITH THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY LEASE RENT UPTO A.Y. 201 1-12 THOUGH THE RETURNS WE RE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED I.E. FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 14.01.2011 AND FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.12.201 1. THE LEASE RENT WAS SHOWN ONLY IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND A.Y. 2013-1 4 AT RS. 60,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSEE STARTED SHOWING OF I RENT IN HER INCOME IN RETURNS FILED AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 17, ACT,1957 ON 18.12.2012. THE RETURN FILED A.Y. 2012-13 HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.03.2013 AND A.Y. 201.3-14 HAS BEEN FILED ON 05.10.2013. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STORY OF LE ASE RENT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT STORY OF THE ASSESSEE. JUST TO AVID PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX ON THE UNPRODUCTIVE ASSET, THE STORY OF LEASE RENT HAS BEEN FRAMED. HAD THE LEASE RENT ON THE ASSET BEING COMING IT HAS BEEN SHOWN ALSO IN THE RETURN F OR A.Y. 2010-11 AND A.Y. 201 1-12 WHICH WERE FILED AFT ER THE EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED. WITHOUT CONSIDERATION IF THE LAND IS GIVEN ANYBODY UNDER ANY AGREEMENT WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `4 WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAME DOES NOT MAKE AN Y LAND AS PRODUCTIVE ASSET. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER VALUED THE LAND AT RS. 28,27,58,800/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO TH E NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A ), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 4. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED AGAINST T HE ADDITION OF TAXABLE WEALTH AMOUNTING TO RS.28.27CRO RES IN RESPECT OF LAND LEASED OUT TO M/S KHANDWA INDUSTRIE S PVT. LTD. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PARA 3 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN BROGHT OUT THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD FILED LEASE DEED DATED 26.12.09 IN REGARD WITH THE LAND U NDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE RENTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LEASING THE LAND UPTO T HE A.Y. 2011- 12. IT IS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO THAT FROM A.Y.2012-13, THE LEASE RENT OF RS.60,000/- P.M. HAS BEEN DISCLOS ED. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE AO THAT LEA SE RENT AND LEASING THE LAND WAS AFTER THOUGHT OF THE APPELLANT JUST TO AVOID THE WEALTH TAX. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E COPY OF ONE LEASE DEED DATED 26-12.2009' HAS BEEN FILED-IN-WHICH THE LAND HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S KBANDWA) INDUSTRIES FOR WHICH LEASE RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON VERIFICATION FROM COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COMPUTATION FILED ALONGWITH THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY LEASE RENT UPTO A.Y. 201 1-12 THOUGH THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE DA TE WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `5 OF EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED I.E. FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 14.01.2011 AND FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.12.201 1. THE LEASE RENT WAS SHOWN ONLY IN A.Y. 2012-13 AND A.Y. 2013-14 AT RS. 60,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSEE STARTED SHOWING OF I RENT IN HER INCOME IN RETURNS FILED AF TER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 17, ACT,1957 ON 18.12.2012. TH E RETURN FILED A.Y. 2012-13 HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.03.2 013 AND A.Y. 201.3-14 HAS BEEN FILED ON 05.10.2013. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STORY OF LE ASE RENT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT STORY OF THE ASSESSEE. JUST TO A VID PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX ON THE UNPRODUCTIVE ASSET, TH E STORY OF LEASE RENT HAS BEEN FRAMED. HAD THE LEASE RENT ON THE ASSET BEING COMING IT HAS BEEN SHOWN ALSO IN THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND A.Y. 201 1-12 WHICH WERE FILED AFTER THE EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED. WITHOUT CONSIDERATION IF THE LAND IS GIVEN ANYBODY UNDER ANY AGREEMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAME DOES NOT MAKE ANY LAND AS PRODUCTIVE ASSET. 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGE D THE TAXABILITY OF THE LAND ON THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS :- [A] THE LAND WAS LEASED OUT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEA L TO M/S KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LIMITED AND REGISTERED LEASED DEED WAS ALSO EXECUTED. [B] THE APPELLANT HAS EXECUTED THE LEASE DEED FOR 3 0 YEARS I.E. MORE THAN 12 YEARS AND THEREFORE DEEMED OWNERS HIP OF THE LAND WAS TRASNFERED TO THE LEASEE AS PER PRO VISION OF SECTION 27[IIIB] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND CORRESPO NDING SECTION 4[8][B] OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 4.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER HAS AGREED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE S AID LAND IS CONSIDERED AS TAXABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE WEALTH WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `6 TAX LIABILITIES OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS HOWEVER OVERLOOKED THE LEASE DEED AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE WITH M/S KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LIMITED AND THE S AME WAS ALSO REGISTERED. MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT LEASE IN COME WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAX, THE NATURE OF LAND CAN NOT BE CHAN GED WHEN THERE WAS EXISTING REGISTERED LEASE DEED DULY EXECUTED. T HE SAID LAND WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUSTRIES AND INCOME W AS ALSO ACCRUED ON THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT T AXABLE UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE SAID LAND WHILE CALCULATING THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ON VERI FICATION OF COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND COMPUTATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SHOWN ANY LEASE RENT UPTO THE A.Y. 2011-12 THOUGH THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE LEASE DEED FOR THE A.Y . 2010-11 ON 14.1.2011 AND FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.12.2011. T HE LEARNED DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LEASE RENT IN THE A.YS. 2012-13 AND 2013-14 AT RS. 60,000/-. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER ELABORATED THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED SHOWING THE LE ASE RENT IN THE RETURNS FILED AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 17 OF T HE W.T. ACT AND THE RETURN FOR THE AY 2012-13 HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.3.20 13 AND FOR THE WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `7 A.Y. 2013-14 HAS BEEN FILED ON 5.10.2013. THE LEAR NED DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEVE RAL FACTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE STORY OF LEASE RENT IS AN AFTER-THOU GHT WHICH HAS BEEN FRAMED TO AVOID PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX ON THE UNPROD UCTIVE ASSET. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS RIGHT IN CONSIDERING AND INCL UDING THE VALUE OF THE SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE WEALTH-TAX. 6. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON 31.3.2010 THE VALUATION DATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF WEALTHTAX, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRE D IN THE FORM OF LEASE DEED TO KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FOR THE PURPOSWE OF COMMERCIAL USE AND LEASE RENT WAS ALSO DUE TO THE A SSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT VID E LEASE DEEDS DATED 25.6.2008 AND 26.12.2009 THE ASSESSEE HAS LEA SED OUT BOTH THE PORTIONS OF LAND WHICH WAS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE STATE REGISTRAR OFFICE AND THE SAID LAND WAS LEASED OUT F OR 30 YEARS FOR ANNUAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12,000/- AND RS. 18,000 /-, RESPECTIVELY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ALLEGED THESE FACTS AS AFTER-THOUGHT STORY W ITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE AO HIMSELF FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LE ASE DEEDS WERE WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `8 REGISTERED DOCUMENTS AND IT HAS NO CONCERN WHETHER THE LEASE RENT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE INCOME WAS OFFERED AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE ACT WAS MERELY A CO-INCIDENCE WHEN THE LEASE DEED WAS REGIS TERED. THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT DISPUTED THE DATE OF LEASE, HENCE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE L EARNED AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED LEASE REN T OF RS. 60,000/- FOR TWO YEARS IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE LAND WAS USED AS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND BY GIVING THE SAME ON LEASE TO KHANDWA INDUSTR IES PVT. LTD. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE T HE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT HER LAND FOR THE PERIOD OF 30 YEARS, THE REFORE, DEEMED OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE LESSEE AND AS SUCH THE LESSEE IS THE OWNER AS ON THE VALUATION DATE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF WEALTAX TAX AND ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE VALUE OF T HE LAND CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF WEALTH TAX COMPUTATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES OTHER CONTENTIONS, THE LEARN ED AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF VOLTAS LIMITED; 301 ITR 217 (MUMB) AND SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `9 EVENT WHEN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LEASED OUT FOR THE PERIOD OF 12 YEARS OR MORE THEN THE PERSON ACQUIRING THE RIGHT T HEREOF AS LESSEE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER THEREOF IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4(A)(B) OF THE ACT. 7. PLACING REJOINDER TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE ORDERED WHEN THE ASSESSEES COMES WITH CLEAN HANDS AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS AWAKENED AFTER THE ISSUE OF N OTICE U/S 17 OF THE ACT THEN ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES, PAPERS, FAB RICATION, ETC. SHOULD BE HELD AS AFTER-THOUGHT AND BOGUS AND THE S AME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, AT THE OUTSET WE OBSERVE THAT AS PER RATIO OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF VOLTAS LIMITED (SUPRA) IT IS C LEAR THAT THE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN LICENCED OR LEASED OUT F OR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 12 YEARS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27(IIIB) AND 269UA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THEN THE LESSEE IS D EEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE W.T. ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE MAIN ALLEGATION WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `10 OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY PROCEEDED TO OF FER LEASE RENT TO TAX AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 17 OF THE ACT, THE REFORE, ALL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT EXPLANATIONS ARE AFTER -THOUGHT WHICH CANNOT BE RELIED ON AND, THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF TH E LAND SHOULD BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF WEALTH- TAX PURPOSES. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT FROM THE COP IES OF LEASE DEED DATED 25.6.2008 (PAPER BOOK PAGES 21 TO 23) COPY OF AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 10.7.2009 (PAPER BOOK PAGES 24 TO 2 7) AND COPY OF SECOND LEASE DEED DATED 26.12.2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (PAPERBOOK PAGES 2 8 TO 38) IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-RE GISTRAR, KHANDWA. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE FABRICATED OR CREATED AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. FURTHER ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF LEASE RENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT INCOME TAX RETURNS FRO M THE A.Y. 2012-13 ONWARDS. 9. FROM THE RELEVANT PART OF PARAS 4.1 AND4.2 OF TH E FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT AFTER CONSIDERING T HE WRITTEN WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `11 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVE D THAT THE AO HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS AGREED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE LEASE RENT INCOME AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS TAXABLE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE WEALTH-TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT LEA SE INCOME WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX, THE NATURE OF LAND CANNOT BE CH ANGED WHEN THERE WAS EXISTING REGISTERED LEASE DEED DULY EXECUTED BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ALLOWING THE LESSEE TO USE THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUSTRY AND INCOME WAS ALSO ACCRUED TO THE LESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT B E HELD AS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE W.T. ACT. T HE CONCLUDED RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO GETS SUPPORT FROM THE R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF VOLTAS LIMITE D (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND, HE NCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 10. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE AR E DE VOID OF ANY MERIT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `12 CO NO. 48/IND/2016 11. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED CROSS OBJECTION JUST TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND TO MAKE THE LEGAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ALIVE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION, HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISING THE LEGAL GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- % (O.P.MEENA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER APRIL 24, 2017. DN/ WTA NO.2/IND/2016 & CO 48/IND/2016 SMT. RAMADEVI GUPTA `13