Apraim Sunny, CHENNAI V. ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), CHENNAI

CO 60/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4091 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MAMMEN MATHEW CA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ WTA NO. 83/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 THE ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI 34. VS SHRI APRAIM SUNNY, NO.21, FIRST LINK STREET, NEHRU NAGAR, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 041. PAN: AKZPS7637Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & C.O. NO.60/CHNY/2018 ( IN WTA NO. 83/CHNY/2017 ) SHRI APRAIM SUNNY, NO.21, FIRST LINK STREET, NEHRU NAGAR, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 041. VS THE ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI 34. PAN: AKZPS7637Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /REVENUE BY : SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, ADDL. CIT !'#$ %&'#() /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAMMEN MATHEW, CA ( %& $#-. /DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2018 %& $#-. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI DATED 29.09.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PA SSED 2 WTA NO. 83/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 60/CHNY/201 8 U/S.16(3) R.W.S. 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A). 2. REVENUES APPEAL: THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED B Y HOLDING THAT THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO WEALTH T AX AS PER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND 8KMS., THE M UNICIPALITY LIMITS BASED ON DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM WHICH IS IN VIOLATION TO RULE 46A OF THE RULES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, FILED HIS WEALTH TA X RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 16.01.2013. ON EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.WTO THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED NON-AGRICULTURE LAND VALUED AT RS.1,26,71,959/-. THEREFORE THE LD.WTO OPINED THAT AS PER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WT ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY WEALTH TAX. THE LD.WTO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WAS HELD AS P LOTS FOR SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDINGLY THE LD.WTO ISS UED SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT REPLY TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE LD.WTO, HE COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT BY ARRIVING AT THE TAXABLE WEALTH AT RS.1,45,04,859/- AND COMPUTED THE 3 WTA NO. 83/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 60/CHNY/201 8 WEALTH TAX AT 1% OF THE TAXABLE WEALTH WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.1,45,050/- THE LD.WTO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S.18(1)(D) & 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR WEALTH TAX BECAUSE IT WA S SITUATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPALITY LIMITS OF 8KM., AND THEREFORE BEYO ND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE LD.WTO TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. 5. BEFORE US THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.WTO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE LD.WTO TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.WTO MAY BE CONFIRMED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THAT HE HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE LD.WTO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED OUTSIDE THE LIMITS 4 WTA NO. 83/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 60/CHNY/201 8 PRESCRIBED U/S.2(EA) OF THE WT ACT AND DECIDE THE I SSUE ACCORDINGLY. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ONLY EXPRESS ED HIS OPINION AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY WEALTH TAX. IN THIS S ITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BECA USE IT IS OPEN TO THE LD.WTO TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MER IT AND LAW. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS DEVOID OF MERITS, THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 29 TH AUGUST, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3)4 /CHENNAI, 567% /DATED 29 TH AUGUST, 2018 6) %& $:; <);$ /COPY TO: 1. !'#$/ ASSESSEE 2.#=> /REVENUE 3. %# ?$ ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF