I.T.O. 23(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. MALITDEVI UMASHANKAR SINGH, MUMBAI

WTA 10/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the wealth tax assessment of Smt. MaltiDevi Umashankar Singh for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decisions on the valuation of a Bolero jeep, the exclusion of a firearm as a taxable asset, and the classification of Wada land as rural, thus non-taxable. The tribunal examined the CIT(A)'s order and the arguments presented by both parties, ultimately deciding to uphold the CIT(A)'s decisions based on precedents and the specific provisions of the Wealth Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847567 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Wealth Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No: 13/Mum/2014
• Laws Referred To: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK PERAMPURNA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Depreciation; Fair market value; Tax effect; Gift

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA No. 10/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) ITO – 23(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Smt. MaltiDevi Umashankar Singh Rambharose Niwas, Jawahar Nagar PAN/GIR No. BTUPS2948K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pratik Jain Revenue by Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR) & Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order 18.08.2025 passed u/s 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A) 51, Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06. The following grounds are reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com 2 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a written down value of Rs. 4,53,250 for the Bolero jeep (after depreciation) instead of the Rs.6,00,000 a assessed and fails to appreciate that the value declared in the sworn election affidavit (Rs.6 lakh) represents a credible fair market value of the vehicle, and that under the Wealth Tax Rules depreciation is only to be accounted for if it was actually allowed in computing income.\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Rs.30,000 added for the assessce's gun by holding that a firearm is not an asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, ignoring the fact that a gun is a valuable property and an indicator of wealth, excluding it creates an unintended gap in the tax base.\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not upholding the addition of Rs.6,10,580 in respect of the Wada land and accepted the assessee's claim that the land is rural land outside the scope of Section 2(ea) without a conclusive finding to that effect, effectively remanding the issue for verification.\" 4. The Tax Effect involved in the instant case is Rs. 7585, which is below the prescribed limit for filing a further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. However, the case falls within the exception clause specified in para 3.1 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 being Wealth Tax. Hence, filing of further appeal before Hon'ble ITAT in this case is recommended. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary during the course of appeal proceeding” 2. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 3 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 CIT(A). Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. The Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, while relying upon the order of assessment, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt a written down value of Rs. 4,53,250/- for the Bolero Jeep (after depreciation) instead of Rs. 6,00,000/- as assessed by the AO. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000/- on account of the assessee holding a firearm and considering the same as not an asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, and also deleted the addition of Rs. 6,10,580/- in respect of Wada land by wrongly accepting the claim of the assessee that the land in question was rural land and thus outside the scope of Section 2(ea) of the Act. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the Revenue Authorities and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the AO received information from the Investigation Wing that the election affidavit filed by Shri Kripashankar Singh before the Returning Officer indicated Printed from counselvise.com 4 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 various movable and immovable properties in the name of the assessee, i.e., Malti Singh, which were not reflected in her books of account, and finally assessed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 22,58,480/- by making the following additions: 6. However, during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), all the additions were challenged. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed a detailed order which is contained in Para Nos 6.1 to 9.2 and the same is reproduced herein below: 6.1 In ground no 3 the appellant has challenged the valuation of Motor Car taken at Rs.6,00,000/- by the AO as against the WDV of the car in the instant year. The AO has not given any finding in the assessment order with respect to this addition but has taken the same from the election affidavit directly. Bolero Car belonging to the appellant and valued at Rs.6,00,000/- was disclosed in the election affidavit which the AO has taken as the value of the movable asset. The appellant has made the following submission in respect of this addition: 5. During the assessment proceedings, it was duly explained before the Id. AO that the said motor carie. Bolero jeep was received by the appellant as a gift from Mr. Amit D Singh on 31.07.2004 valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Printed from counselvise.com 5 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 appellant had duly submitted the details of such gift at the time of assessment proceedings. 6. In the proceedings before Id. AO under the Wealth Tax Act, Id.AO has considered the said car while computing the net assets for levy of wealth tax. In this regard, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- is the gross amount whereas the net WDV of Rs. 4,53,250/- shall be considered for levy of wealth tax. 6.2 The contention of the appellant has been considered. The Wealth Tax Act specifically provides for valuation of motor car as taxable wealth in Rule 14 of Schedule III as per which depreciation at specified rate is to be provided in the valuation of the Motor Car. The appellant has computed the WDV to be Rs.4,53,250/- The AO is directed to verify the said computation with respect to the rates provided in the Rules and take the value of Motor Car at the amount so computed after allowing depreciation at the prescribed rates. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. In Ground No 4 the appellant has challenged the treatment of a gun as wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. The appellant has relied upon the decision of ITAT in her own case for AY 2004-05 in which the ITAT in its decision in ITA No: 13/Mum/2014 dated 13.05.2015 has held that gun is not included in the definition of asset in the Wealth Tax Act. Respectfully following the said decision, it is held that gun cannot betaken as an asset for the purpose of computing wealth tax and the addition of Rs.30,000/- done by the AO is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8.1 In ground no 5 the appellant has challenged the action of the AO in taking the land at Wada Village and valued at Rs.6,10,580/- as taxable wealth. The finding of the AO in making this addition is reproduced as under: As per the declaration made before the Returning Officer through the affidavit filed on 21-09-2004, the assessee is owning the immovable Printed from counselvise.com 6 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 property. During the assessment proceedings and through her clarification fumished in response to the query raised on this issue, it is explained and clarified that the said properties were purchase in the year 1999. In support of her contention, the assessee has produced purchased agreements in Original for my verification and also filed copies of the same for record. On perusal of the wealth tax return, the assessee has not offered the above mentioned property in question and therefore, the same is added to the net wealth. 8.2 The appellant in her written submission has stated that the land is a rural land and is therefore not an asset under the Wealth Tax Act. She has further stated that this issue has already been decided by the ITAT in its decision in ITA No: 13/Mum/2014 dated 13.05.2015 for AY 2004-05 in 5 in her own case, The decision of the ITAT is reproduced as under 9.1 Ground No.4 is in respect of addition of value of rural land. The AO noted that as per the declaration before the Returning Officer, though affidavit dated 21.09.2009, the assessee was owning immovable property being non-agricultural at Taluka Panchayat Samiti Wada village of Rs.6 lakhs and stamp duty of Rs. 10,580/- was paid. The AO held that the assessee has not offered the above mentioned land in the Wealth Tax Returns in the year under consideration, therefore Rs. 6, 10,580/- was added to the taxable wealth. 10. On appeal, the assessee contended that the land in question does not fall under the definition of assets as per the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act because this land is located in a village in Thane District. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of this contention that this land is beyond the 25 km of local limit of Municipality 11. Before us, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted the \"CENSUS\" 2011 record in respect of the village Kumdal where the land is situated and submitted that total population of this village is 517 persons and is 54 km away from the Municipal Limits, therefore, the the Id. AR submitted that the land in question does not fall Printed from counselvise.com 7 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 under the purview of urban land as per clause (iv) of section 3 (ea) because it is not within the limit of Municipality or within the distance of 25 km. 12. On the other hand, the DR submitted that the assessee has failed to produce any supporting document or evidence before the authorities below and hence this fact requires verification and examination. He has relied on the orders of authorities below. 13. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant material available on record. We notice that the authorises below has considered the land in question as urban land and added to the total wealth of the assessee assessable to tax on the ground that the assessee has not produced any evidence that this land is located in the village which is beyond the local limit of 25 km of Municipality as per the section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee has now filed \"Census\" 2011 record of Government of Maharashtra in respect of village Kumdal showing the population at 517. Further, the assessee has stated that the distance of the said village is 54 km from the Municipal Limit, therefore, the land does not fall within the purview of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. Prima Facie, it appears that the fand situated in a village having population of 517 and also situated beyond the limit of Municipality. However, the relevant facts have not been verified, therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO to verify the facts as well as relevant record in this respect and then decide the same as per law. 9.2 Respectfully following the said decision of the ITAT in appellant's case, the AO is directed to apply the same finding in respect of the land for AY 2004-05 for this year also. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. After having gone through the facts of the present case and having heard the parties at length, we find that since the Bolero car belonged to the assessee and was valued at Rs. 6,00,000/- as Printed from counselvise.com 8 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 disclosed in the election affidavit, which the AO had taken as a movable asset, however, after considering the contentions of the assessee, the Wealth Tax Rules provide for valuation of a motor car under Rule 14 of Schedule III, as per which depreciation at specified rates is to be provided in the valuation of the motor car. 8. Thus, the AO was rightly directed to verify the said computation with respect to the rate provided in the Rules and thereafter to take the value of the motor car as computed after allowing depreciation at prescribed rates. 9. As far as the holding of a gun is concerned, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No. 13/Mum/2014 dated 13.05.2015 has already held that a gun is not included in the definition of assets under the Wealth Tax Act. Thus, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, the addition on account of holding a gun was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 10. As far as Wada land is concerned, the said land is also the subject matter of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No. 13/Mum/2014 dated 13.05.2015, wherein it was held that rural land is outside the purview of assets as per Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, considering the said decision in the assessee's own case by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, the additions were deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 9 WTA No.10 /Mum/2025 11. Even otherwise, no new facts or circumstances or documents have been placed on records by Ld. DR in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A), hence we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2026 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "