THE WEALTH TAX OFFICE 10(2)(4), V. SUSHILA M. RUNGTA,

MA 305/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0094 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R A SINGH

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES WT, MUMBAI .. , ! ' #$ , % ', & BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ## ' ./ MA NOS.304 & 305/MUM/2012 ( ()* + / ARISING OUT OF WTA NO.01 & 02/MUM/2010) ( % , % , % , % , / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001) THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD 16(2)(4) MUMBAI. SMT.SUSHILA M.RUNGTA LEGAL HEIR OF ESTATE OF LATE SHRI CHIRANJLAL S.GOENKA 32 BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG, FORT MUMBAI 400 023. PAN : AIUPG5967E ( ' / // / APPLICANT) / VS. ( -./0/ RESPONDENT) ' 1 11 1 2 2 2 2 / APPLICANT BY : MS.RAJARSHI DWIVEDY -./0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.SINGH 1 *! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2013. 34, 1 *! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2013. ' 5 ' 5 ' 5 ' 5 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.11.2011 IN WTA NOS.01 & 02/MUM/20 10, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001 2. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEALS BY NOTING THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . HE HOWEVER POINTED OUT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE ISSUE WAS, IN FACT, DECIDED AGAINST MA NO.304/MUM/2012 SMT.SUSHILA M.RUNGTA. 2 THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS PLACED O N RECORD. THE LEARNED AR WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THIS FACT. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN FACT, DECIDED THE ISSUE OF INCLUSION OF VALUE OF GOLD IN THE TOTAL WE ALTH OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ITS EARLIER ORDER. AS THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ADMITTEDLY SIMILAR TO TH OSE OF THE PRECEDING YEARS, WE HOLD THAT THE VALUE OF GOLD IS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS MODIFIED AND THE LOGICAL CONS EQUENCE THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. 6 *7 ' 1 ## ' * 1 $* 89 : IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUAR Y, 2013. ' 5 1 34, ;'7 4 1 < SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S.SYAL) % ' % ' % ' % ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; ;' DATED : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. DEVDAS* MA NO.304/MUM/2012 SMT.SUSHILA M.RUNGTA. 3 ' 5 1 -%*=# > #,* ' 5 1 -%*=# > #,* ' 5 1 -%*=# > #,* ' 5 1 -%*=# > #,*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPLICANT. 2. -./0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ? () / THE CWT(A) 27, MUMBAI. 4. ? / CWIT 5. #B< -%*% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6.