INDRAJEET SINGH BHATIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

WTA 5/RPR/2024

AI Insights

Indrajeet Singh Bhatia filed appeals against the wealth tax assessments for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The appeals were directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the valuation of certain lands, claiming that the rates applied were higher than their fair market values. However, the tribunal dismissed the appeals on the basis that they were duplicates of previously decided cases, and no new grounds or merits were presented that differed from the earlier decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299017 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Fair market value

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (WTA No: 02, 03, 04 & 05RPR/2024) (िनधा[रण वष[ Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, B-19, Ravi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) V s Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur PAN: AAVPB1662Q (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : None राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeals are filed by the same assessee against four orders dated 23.07.2024, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, under section 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, which in turn resulted from the respective orders of Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax-1(1), Raipur, framed u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, all dated 31.03.2024. 2 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals pertains to one assessee for different assessment years, involving therein common, interconnected and interwoven issues having identical facts and circumstances, except the quantum of additions imposed, therefore, all the aforesaid appeals are taken up together to decide the same, under this common order. 3. WTA No. 02/RPR/2024 has been picked up as the lead case in the present matter, wherein our observations and adjudication shall mutatis mutandis apply to the other cases. 4. Grounds of appeal raised in the aforesaid appeals are extracted as under: WTA No. 02/RPR/2024 For AY 2008-09 1. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the addition made by the AO. The same is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,55,500/- made by the AO, for land at Dunda to the total wealth of the assessee applying rate incorrectly which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 3. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 47,29,549/- made by the AO, for land at Tatibandh to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 4. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 37,79,296/- made by the AO, for land at Temri 3 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 5. The appellants Craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. WTA No. 03/RPR/2024 For AY 2009-10 1. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the addition made by the AO. The same is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,68,806/- made by the AO, for land at Dunda to the total wealth of the assessee applying rate incorrectly which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 3. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 41,13,800/- made by the AO, for land at Tatibandh to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 4. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 46,98,279/- made by the AO, for land at Temri to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 5. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,48,950/- made by the AO, for land at Borialaka to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 6. The appellants Craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. WTA No. 04/RPR/2024 For AY 2010-11 1. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the addition made by the AO. The same is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 4 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur 2. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,56,972/- made by the AO, for land at Dunda to the total wealth of the assessee applying rate incorrectly which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 3. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 47,29,549/- made by the AO, for land at Tatibandh to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 4. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 83,55,225/- made by the AO, for land at Amlidih to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 5. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs.15,37,060/- made by the AO, for land at Borialaka to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 6. The appellants Craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. WTA No. 05/RPR/2024 For AY 2011-12 1. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the addition made by the AO. The same is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,250/- made by the AO, for land at Dunda to the total wealth of the assessee applying rate incorrectly which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 3. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 56,45,713/- made by the AO, for land at Tatibandh to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 4. The Ld. CIT Appeals Raipur-3 had erred on facts as well as in law by sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,07,15,260/- made by the AO, for land at 5 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur Amlidih to the total wealth of the assessee taking rate which is higher than the fair market value of the said land. 5. The appellants Craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case as per statement of facts furnished by the assessee are culled out as under: Statement of facts The assessee had received notice u/s l64 dt. 17-12-12 requiring the assessee to file the return of wealth. Thereafter, the assessee filed his wealth tax return on 24-2-14 declaring net wealth at Rs. 2,15,26,000 (i.e., Rs.2,45,26,000 as gross wealth minus Rs.30 lakhs as exemption limit) and paid wealth tax thereon at Rs. 2,81,990 on 21-2-14. Notice u/s 16(2) was issued on 9-12-13. The counsel for the assessee requested to provide reasons for reopening the case of assessee, which has provided by the AO. The AO asked to furnish balance sheet of the firms, companies in which the assessee had interest. The assessee duly filed the requisite documents before the AO. Further, after filing the wealth tax return by the assessee and other required documents, no further opportunity for being heard was given to the assessee and finally, the AO passed the wealth tax assessment order on 31-3-14. by assessing total wealth at Rs. 5,08,92,190 (i.e., made addition of Rs. 2,63,66,223 enhancing the value of urban lands, to the total wealth). The AO assessed the value of land at Dunda at Rs. 23,36,250 as against the value shown in the wealth tax return at Rs. 23,31,000. Assessed the value of 6 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur land at Tatibandh at Rs. 89,05,072 as against the value shown at Rs. 32,59,359. Further, assessed the value of land at Amlidih at Rs. 2,78,98,799 as against the value shown at Rs. 71,83,539. The rates of all the above lands has incorrectly applied by the AO while assessing the wealth of the assessee, while the actual fair market value are same as shown in the return. Against this arbitrary action of the AO against the assessee that too without proper and reasonable opportunity. the appellant is in appeal for the year under consideration. 6. The aforesaid cases were fixed for hearing on 21.10.2024 wherein the assessee has sought adjournment, the adjournment was granted with fixing the cases for next hearing on 23.10.2024. However, when the case was called for hearing on 23.10.2024, it was informed that no-one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is noticed that the orders against which the aforesaid appeals are filed are on account of dismissal of the appeals of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that such appeals are filed in duplicate before him and the corresponding appeals are already disposed of on 22.07.2024. In view of such facts of the case, we find it appropriate not to prolong the proceedings any further, as the controversies raised by the assessee as no nexus with the findings in the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the matter was considered to be proceeded on the basis of material 7 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur available on record, after hearing the Ld. Representative on behalf of the revenue. 7. At the outset, on perusal of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2008-09, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of De-duplicate entry without any adjudication on the merits. The short order of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of duplicate filing of the same appeal for the AY 2008-09 is culled out for the sake of completeness of the facts, as an illustration, being orders in all four years are identically narrated: 8 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur 9 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur 8. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it is observed that the impugned order does not contain any finding on merits of the issues assailed by the assessee, as the grievances qua the additions / disallowances made by the Ld. AO are already disposed of / adjudicate by the First Appellate Authority and decided in the appellate order passed in the original appeal No. CIT(A)-1/13201/2015-16 on 22.07.2024, for the AY 2008-09. Referring to the grounds of appeal 10 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur assailed by the assessee before us, stating errors on facts as well as law by the ld. AO, which are not deliberated upon by the Ld. CIT(A), we observe that, since the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of De-duplicate entry, whereas the identical appeal having same grounds of appeal are already disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) for the same AY on 22.07.2024 are not challenged before us, therefore, the allegation pointing out the perversity in the orders of Ld. CIT(A) is found to be out of place and misconceived. Under such facts and circumstances of the present case, the controversies raised by the assessee as per grounds of appeal extracted (supra) are not emanating or emerging from the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we are unable to comprehend as to how the assessee is aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), particularly on account of the allegations made in the grounds of appeal of the present appeal whereas the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of De-duplicate entry. In view of such factual findings, we are of the considered view and constrained to observe that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable, in absence of the basis for grievances assailed which are not cropped up from the impugned order. In result, the appeal of the assessee is rendered as infructuous, thus, liable to be dismissed. 11 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur 09. Resultantly, the appal in WTA No. 02/RPR/2024 stands dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 10. Having similar facts, circumstances and controversies involved in the remaining appeals of the assessee for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, similar to the facts and circumstances as are for the AY 2008-09, wherein, in substance, the grounds raised by the assessee assailing the grievance / allegation are not emerging from the impugned orders of the first appellate authority u/s 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, therefore, our aforesaid decision in WTA No. 02/RPR/2024 shall equally applicable to the appeals in WTA No. 03, 04, 05/RPR/2024, consequently, the same are also dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 11. In combined result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee in WTA No. 02, 03, 04 & 05/RPR/2024 are dismissed, in terms of aforesaid Order pronounced in the open court on 25 /10/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 25/10/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav 12 WTA No. 02, 03, 04 &05/RPR/2024 Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, vs DCWT-1(1), Raipur आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Indrajeet Singh Bhatia, Raipur 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- DCWT-1(1), Raipur 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // "