Sri Prithviraj Singh Oberoi , Kolkata V. DCWT, Circle - 8(1), , Kolkata

CO 7/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3137 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K NAYAK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER] W.T.A. NOS. 14, 15 & 16/KOL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) DCWT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA...............................................................APPELLANT SRI PRITHVIRAJ SINGH OBEROI......RESPONDENT [PAN : AADPO 2048 R] & C.O. NOS.6,7 & 8/KOL/2019 (A/O W.T.A. NOS. 14, 15 & 16/KOL/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) SRI PRITHVIRAJ SINGH OBEROI......CROSS-OBJECTOR [PAN : AADPO 2048 R] DCWT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA...............................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A. K. NAYAK, CIT-DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. SHRI A.K. SINGH, FCA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 5 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 28 TH , 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH:- ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-23, KOLKATA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS. 2. AS THE ISSUE ARISING IN ALL THESE APPEAL ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CWT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 5(1)(VI) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 IN RESPECT OF A FARMHOUSE TREATING IT AS A HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 5(1)(VI) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 2 W.T.A. NOS. 14, 15 & 16/KOL/2018 & C.O. NOS.6,7 & 8/KOL/2019 SRI PRITHVIRAJ SINGH OBEROI 2. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER OR ADD TO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE HOUSE THAT IS THE FARM HOUSE IN QUESTION. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER A FARM HOUSE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A HOUSE. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE TERM HOUSE DOES NOT INCLUDE FARM HOUSE AND THE LAW SHOULD BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE DEFINITION OF THE ACT AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND CONTENDS THAT THE TERM HOUSE INCLUDES A FARM HOUSE U/S 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 4. THE TERM HOUSE IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(EA) OF W.T. ACT AS FOLLOWS: [(I) ANY BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS HOUSE ), WHETHER USED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A GUEST HOUSE OR OTHERWISE INCLUDING A FARM HOUSE SITUATED WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOMETRES FROM LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE (EMPHASIS OURS) (1) A HOUSE MEANT EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND WHICH IS ALLOTTED BY A COMPANY TO AN EMPLOYEE OR AN OFFICER OR A DIRECTOR WHO IS IN WHOLE-TIME EMPLOYMENT, HAVING A GROSS ANNUAL SALARY OF LESS THAN FIVE LAKH RUPEES; (2) ANY HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WHICH FORMS PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE; (3) ANY HOUSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM; (4) ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN LET-OUT FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF THREE HUNDRED DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR; (5) ANY PROPERTY IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OR COMPLEXES;] 5. THUS, ANY BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO IS REFERRED AS THE HOUSE IN THIS SECTION. THUS, THE TERM HOUSE INCLUDES, A FARM HOUSE. THIS IS CLEAR ON A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD ON THIS POINT. 3 W.T.A. NOS. 14, 15 & 16/KOL/2018 & C.O. NOS.6,7 & 8/KOL/2019 SRI PRITHVIRAJ SINGH OBEROI 6. IN VIEW OF THE OUR ABOVE DECISION, THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS-OBJECTIONS NEED NOT TO BE ADJUDICATED AS THEY WOULD BE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. KOLKATA, THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ] [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28.02.2019 (RS, SR. PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DCWT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. 2. SRI PRITHVIRAJ SINGH OBEROI, C/O M/S EIH LIMITED, 6 TH FLOOR, 4, MANGOE LANE, KOLKATA 700 001. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES