SANJAY GARG,PANIPAT V. DCWT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

WTA 2/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sanjay Garg against the wealth tax assessments made by the DCWT, Central Circle, Karnal, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The primary contention of the assessee was that his net wealth was below the taxable limit and that the properties in question, which were business assets and generated rental income, should not have been considered for wealth tax. The Ld. CWT(A) had partly allowed the appeal for the earlier year but sustained the additions to wealth for the years in question. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, noting the absence of the assessee's representation and the thorough consideration given to the issues by the Ld. CWT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41797 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Wealth Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA No.01/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) WTA No.02/Del/2021 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) Sanjay Garg, 44-45, Gandhi Mandi, Panipat, Haryana PAN-AAPPG0192C Vs. DCWT, Central Circle, Karnal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/02/2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘the Ld. CWT(A)’ for short) for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. As the facts involved in both the appeals are identical, therefore, the same are taken together and disposed off by a single order for the sake of convenience. 2 WTA No.01 & 02 /DEL/2021 Sanjay Garg vs. DCWT 3. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal in WTA No.01/Del/2021:- “1. That the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income/Wealth Tax, Central Circle, Karnal/Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram, Haryana is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram, Haryana failed to appreciate that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income/Wealth Tax, Central Circle, Karnal, Haryana is perverse in law and facts and has been passed in a pre-determined and biased manner without considering the submissions and evidences placed on records. 3. That the learned CWT (A)-3, Gurugram is not justified in rejecting the appellants objections towards the assumption of the jurisdiction and to the proceedings initiated u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on the basis of the information received from Investigation Wing of the department and towards the manner in which approval is granted. 4. That the learned CWT (A)-3, Gurugram is erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions/explanations placed on records in their correct perspective and is not justified in sustaining addition to wealth to the tune of Rs. 3,30,99,876/-. 5. Appellant's 1/4th share in the property situated at Patti, Gohana Road, Panipat and known as Kataria Estate, which is a business asset and leased out on rent during the year does not constitutes for the asset to be considered for taxability under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The status of the asset i.e. a business asset being used for rental/business purposes has not been correctly considered in spite of the fact that all such evidences in the shape of ITR etc. showing rental income from the property were placed on records. Even the fact, which is in public domain and available on the portal, that while assessing the wealth for the subsequent year i.e. for A.Y. 2012- 13, the department had considered the property as business asset and had not considered it liable for wealth tax purposes. From the above facts, it is evident that learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram is not justified in sustaining the addition to wealth on this score. 3 WTA No.01 & 02 /DEL/2021 Sanjay Garg vs. DCWT 6. Further, the estimation of the valuation of the above property on estimated basis is unjustified in view of the above facts as well as not in consonance with the procedure laid down by the legislature. 7. The learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram is not justified in sustaining the addition to wealth with respect to two Villas situated at Eldeco, Panipat in as much as both the villas were leased out not only during the year under consideration but also in the subsequent years and the rental income earned by the appellant is duly considered and is part of the Income Tax Returns filed over period of time. It is also to be submitted that even the assessing officer, while framing the assessment of the wealth for A.Y. 2012-13 u/s 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 has duly accepted the above fact and has not considered the asset as liable to charging of Wealth Tax. 8. There is no justification in revising the share/interest of the appellant in partnership concern and the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurugram is not justified in not appreciating the fact that the A.O. was not justified in making addition of Rs. 2,19,906/- to the wealth of the appellant. 9. That initiation of the penalty proceeding u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act is not only contrary to the facts but unjustified. Further, charging of the interest u/s 178 of the Act is not only unjustified but highly excessive. 10. That the wealth tax demand created consequent to the assessment/appellate order is highly excessive and un-reasonable in view of the facts submitted in the above grounds and deserves to be deleted. 11. That the above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one and another. 12. That the appellant craves lease to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that assesse is an individual and had not filed the return of wealth and claimed that his net wealth is below the limit chargeable to the Wealth Tax. A search was carried in the case of Garg Group of cases, Panipat. The assessee is one of the member of this group. During the course of search proceedings, it 4 WTA No.01 & 02 /DEL/2021 Sanjay Garg vs. DCWT was found that total wealth of the assessee is exceeding the limit not chargeable to the Wealth Tax, and, therefore, proceedings u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were initiated and the assessment proceeding was completed u/s 16 (3) r.w.s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, vide order dated 15/12/2017 computing total net wealth of assessee at Rs.4,10,15,744/- as against the total wealth of Rs.29,15,868/- declared by the assessee in the Wealth Tax return filed in response to notice u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Against such order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CWT (A) who vide order dated 30/06/2021 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the present appeal is filed before us by the assessee. 5. The case of the assessee is called for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the perusal of the order sheet, we find that the case is listed for hearing on 16 occasions and on earlier occasions either no body appeared or an adjournment was sought by the AR of the assessee, thus, we presume that the assessee is not interested in pursuing these appeals. It is further seen that the Ld. CWT(A) has discussed each and every issue at length and after considering the submissions made by assessee has allowed part relief to assessee. The Ld. CWT(A) sustained the action of the reopening the assessment and further confirmed the addition made to the total wealth of the assessee after providing sufficient opportunity and considering the facts and submissions made by the assessee before him. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed the paper book containing 5 WTA No.01 & 02 /DEL/2021 Sanjay Garg vs. DCWT in 108 pages which includes certain affidavits which were not filed before the lower authorities. No prayer for the admissions of the same under Rule-29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is made before us. Further, the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of the Ld. CWT(A) which were given after due consideration of submissions made. Looking to these facts, we do not interfere in the findings given by the Ld. CWT(A) on any of the issue. As result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. WTA 02/Del/2021 5. The facts of the case in the year under appeal are identical to the facts as narrated in Wealth Tax Appeal No.01. This year also assessee has made no representation before us, thus, by following the observations made in the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in WTA 02/Del/2021, present appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 19/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:19/02/2025 PK/Sr.Ps 6 WTA No.01 & 02 /DEL/2021 Sanjay Garg vs. DCWT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "