SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, Jaipur V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, Jaipur

WTA 05/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3581 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S NEHRA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Fair market value; Set aside

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ WTA NO. 05/JP/2017 & 06/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 & 2008-09 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, 211-212, SHALIMAR COMPLEX, CHURCH ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAXPG 7461 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOEL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.S. NEHRA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/10/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THESE TWO WEALTH TAX APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX APPEALS-I. JAIPUR, DATED 18/07/2017. WTA NO. 05/JP/2017. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 05/JP/2017 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74 ,10,005/- IN RETURN WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPROVED/AGRIC ULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS ASSESSING MARKET VALUE OF RS. 1,7 4,10,005/- AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPTED BY ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THESE ASSETS. 2 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHE REBY HE HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF DEBTS OF RS. 1,04,59,830/- CLA IMED TO BE UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING THE TAXABLE ASSETS INCLUDED IN THE NE T WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AME ND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 17 R.W.S. 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/03/2015. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON WEALTH OF RS. 1,74,10,005/- AND THUS COMPUTED TOTAL WEALTH OF RS. 2,24,80,847/-. AGAINST THE WEALTH DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WEALTH TAX R ETURN OF RS. 50,70,842/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CWT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,10, 005/- IN RETURN WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPROVE D/AGRICULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS. 4.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.1.3 SUBMISSION BY ASSESSEE: I. THE PLOTS/LANDS WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED ASSET S ARE EITHER AGRICULTURE LANDS OR THE PLOTS FOR WHICH JDA ALLOTM ENT LETTER WERE NOT ISSUED OR COLONIES WERE NOT APPROVED BY JDA. SINCE AS PER RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE JDA THE CONSTRUCTION ARE ONLY PE RMISSIBLE ON THE LANDS/PLOTS FOR WHICH THE JDA HAS ISSUED THE ALLOTM ENT LETTER AND IN ABSENCE OF THAT NO CONSTRUCTION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON SUCH LANDS/PLOTS AND IF ANY CONSTRUCTION IS CARRIED OUT THEREON WITH OUT OBTAINING THE 3 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. APPROVAL FROM JDA/PERMISSION OF JDA, THE SAME WILL BE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND JDA MAY DEMOLISH IT. SINCE AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1(B) TO THE SECTION 2(EA)(IV) OF WEALTH TAX ACT,195 7 PROVIDE THAT URBAN LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTUR AL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE S OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SI TUATED. II. WE FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 WAS ENACTED UNDER THE RAJASTHAN STATE LEGISLATURE AND RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON 12TH DAY OCTOBER, 19 82 AND HENCE BECOME THE STATUTORY LAW. THE SECTION 17(1) OF THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 RELATED TO TAKING P ERMISSION FROM JDA BEFORE MAKING DEVELOPMENT IN JAIPUR REGION IS R EPRODUCED HEREWITH:- 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORIT Y, NO AUTHORITY OR PERSON SHALL UNDERTAKE ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE JAIPUR R EGION OF THE TYPE AS THE AUTHORITY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME SPECIFY, BY NOTIFIC ATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AND WHICH IS LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE JAIPUR REGION' IN CASE ANY PERSON UNDERTAKES CONSTRUCTION /DEVELOP MENT WITHOUT TAKING PROPER APPROVAL, THE JDA SHALL POWER TO DEMO LISH OR REMOVE SUCH CONSTRUCTION/ DEVELOPMENT. THE SECTION 17(5) OF THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 IS REPRODUCED HEREW ITH:- 'IN CASE ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY DOES ANYTHING CONT RARY TO THE DECISION GIVEN UNDER THIS SECTION, THE AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE POWER TO PULL DOWN, DEMOLISH OR REMOVE ANY DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN CONTRARY TO SUCH DECISION AND RECOVER 4 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. THE COST OF SUCH PULLING DOWN, DEMOLITION OR REMOVA L FROM THE PERSON OR AUTHORITY CONCERNED' IT IS CLEAR FROM ABOVE SUBMISSION THAT IN UNAPPROVE D SCHEMES OR WHERE JDA PATTA HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED NO CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY PERSON. SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S PLOTS/LANDS ARE NOT APPROVED B Y JDA OR JDA PATTA HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED, THESE PLOTS ARE NOT PERMISSIBL E FOR CONSTRUCTION. FURTHER, THE JDA PATTA IS NOT ISSUED, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS VEST IN GOVERNMENT. THIS MAY BE SEEN FROM FOLLOWING:- CATEGORY OF LAND OWNER ASSESSEES STATUS AGRICULTURAL LAND GOVERNMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASE RIGHT TO CULTIVATE 90B COMPLETED GOVERNMENT. AS PER SECTION 90B/90A OF RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE THE LAND VEST IN GOVERNMENT AND IN REVENUE RECORDS THE NAME OF JDA IS ENTERED AS OWNER THE ASSESSEE HAS POSSESSION HOLDER. JDA PATTA ISSUED OWNER ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE CONSTRUCTION I N FIRST TWO CATEGORIES OF LAND AND THE FIRST TWO CATEGORY OF LA ND ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION OF S TORAGE, AND OTHER UTILITIES AND FACILITIES IN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAVE DIRECT NEXUS WITH AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. IN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE I NDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION EITHER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL CANNOT BE ALLOWED. (III) THE LEGISLATURE USED THE WORD 'NOT PERMISSIBLE ' AND IT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS 'PROHIBITED'. WHEN THE STAY IS GRANTED ON LAND OR THE LAND IS UNDER ACQUISITION, THEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED. BUT WHEN THE LAND IS UNAPPROVED, THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PER MISSIBLE. 5 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. (IV) THE LD CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MARS HOTELS & RESORTS (P) LTD VS DCWT . THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL BUILDING WAS PERMISSIBLE IF T HE CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK IS COMPLIED WIT H. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS OF HON'B LE ITAT IN PARA 7.2 AND 7.3 AS UNDER:- '7.2 VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.11.1992 UNDER THE M RPA 1966, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS RESERVED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% FOR PARK AND THE REMAINING 50% OF THE LAND TO BE DELETED AND INCLUDED IN C-I ZONE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF HOTEL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE PARK AND SHALL KEEP THEM FOR GENER AL PUBLIC DURING RESTRICTED HOURS. 7.3 THUS, VIDE THE SAID NOTIFICATION, 50% LAND WAS KEPT AS RESERVED FOR PARK TO BE DEVELOPED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUB JECT TO THE SAID CONDITIONS, THE REMAINING 50% OF THE LAND WAS DELET ED FROM THE RESERVED CATEGORY AND ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR HOTEL. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION VIDE ORDER O F THE COMPANY LAW BOARD DATED 30.1.1995 WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUI RED THE LAND IN QUESTION AFTER THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.1992 AND THEREFO RE, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAND IN QUE STION WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION.' (V) THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJ AB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMRIT LAL JINDAL & SONS HUF VS WTQ REPORTED IN 327 ITR 161 (P&H) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE NO CONSTRUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW THEN SUCH LAN D WOULD NOT BE 'URBAN LAND'. 6 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. THEREFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION/CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,10,005 /- IN RETURNED WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPROVED/AGRIC ULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS. THE HUMBLE ASSESSEE PRAYS YOUR H ONOR KINDLY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 4.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION S AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE IS TWOFOLD. FIRSTLY, THAT THE ASSET IS EXEMPT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(EA)(IV) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. AS ON THIS LAND THE CO NSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE VALUATION A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE VALUATION IS DISPUTED , THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE VALUATION TO DVO. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES I.E. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS PERMISSIBLE ON THE LAND FURTHER NO EFFORT IS MADE AS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSE TS. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DECIDE AFRESH. THE AO WOULD MAKE ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT NO BUILDING IS PERMISSIBLE ON THE LAND AND ALSO WOULD REFER THE ISSUE OF VALUA TION OF THE COST OF ASSETS TO THE DVO TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING THE WEALTH TAX, 7 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED QUA THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT ASSET IS EXEMPT. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1, IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST NON-ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF DEBTS OF RS. 1,04,59,830/-. 5.2 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UND ER THE IDENTICAL FACTS, THIS ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDED AFRESH BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND PRAYED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY ALSO BE RESTORED. 5.3 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.2.3 SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE: (I) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO SUBMISSION IN ABOVE PARA, IF I MMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY ASSESSEE IS CHARGEA BLE TO WEALTH TAX BY LD AO AT THEIR MARKET VALUE THEN FROM THE AG GREGATE OF ALL ASSETS, THE VALUE OF DEBT OF RS. 1,04,59,830/-OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE IN RELATION TO THOSE ASSETS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE VALUE OF ASSETS CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TAX. ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT CWT VS GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG. (WVG.) CO. LTD. [1981] 131 ITR 140 (MP). (II) THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION:- (I) ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN WTA NO 1/JU/2008 ORDER DATED 20-03- 2009 IN THE CASE OF THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELS PVT LTD VS ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR FOR AY 1998-99. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE OWNED A LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN ON LEASE AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. 8 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. THE SECURITY DEPOSIT WAS HELD AS DEBT AND DEDUCTION U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT WAS ALLOWED. (II) THE DEPARTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE RAJASTH AN HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE LISTED AS WEALTH TAX APPEAL 1 OF 2008 TITLED AS CIT UDAIPUR VS LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELS LTD. HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST L EASE IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS DEBT U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. (COPY ENCLOSED) (III) HON'BLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN M/S SALASAR OVERSEAS PVT LTD IN WTA NO. 2 & 3/JP/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 08-09) (COPY ENCLOSED-PB 49-55) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL O N RECORD AND CASE LAWS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THE LD. CWT (A) IN APPE AL HAS RETURNED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST PLOT BOOKING AND JDA CHARGES HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR ACQUISITION OF G OLD AND CAR. THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NEITHER BEEN ASSAILED BY THE RE VENUE NOR SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE ON FACTS. THE SAME, THEREFORE, ATTAINS FINALITY. WE ALSO FIND AND THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST PLOT BOOKING AND JDA CHARGES WERE REPAYABLE IN CASH OR KIND ON THE RELEVANT VALUATION DATE AND IS A DEB T INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN TREAT ED AS INCOME NOR WERE ASSESSED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME OF THE YEARS UND ER CONSIDERATION IN FRAMING INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR RESPECTIVE YEA RS IN APPEAL. HAVING UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT FOR CREATION OF THE ASSETS I.E. MOTOR CAR AND JEWELLERY/BULLION, IT IS PALPABLE THAT THE DEBT INCURRED HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH ASSETS UN DER CONSIDERATION. GOING BY THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2 (M) OF THE WT AC T, SUCH DEBTS OUTSTANDING ON THE VALUATION DATES ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM 9 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. THE VALUE OF ASSETS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF WEALTH FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFO RE, MODIFY THE DECISION OF LD. CWT (A) IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APP EAL AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SO THAT THE ASSESSABLE WEALTH AS ON VALUATION DATE IS RECOMPUTED AFRESH AFTER DED UCTING THE DEBTS SO PAYABLE ON THE VALUATION DATE IN THE LIGHT OF DISCU SSIONS AS CONTAINED HEREIN BEFORE FROM THE VALUE OF ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION.' THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONA L ITAT ON SAME FACTS, DEBTS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQU ISITION OF THESE PROPERTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 5.5. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE WAS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN WTA NO.01/JP/2017 IN THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW TO DETE RMINE THE NET WEALTH IS TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF ALL THE DEBTS OWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALUATION DATE WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELA TION TO THE SAID ASSETS WHICH ARE EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX. THE EMPHA SIS IS THEREFORE ON DEBT IN RELATION TO THE SAID ASSETS. THE ASSESSE E WOULD THEREFORE BE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEBT HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH ASSETS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROXIMITY OR CONNECTION WITH THE ASSET IS SINE QUA NON FOR TH E PURPOSES OF CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION OF DEBT. THE DECISION OF HO NBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LAKE PALACE HOTEL AND MOTELS, RELI ED UPON BY THE LD AR, ALSO LAYS DOWN A SIMILAR PROPOSITION WHERE IT WAS H ELD THAT THE AMOUNT 10 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. (REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT BEARING RATE OF INTERE ST) HAS A DIRECT NIXUS WITH THE LAND IN QUESTION AND WAS ACCORDINGLY EXCLU DED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(M) OF THE ACT. HAVING SAID THAT, THERE I S AGAIN NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD AR WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY NEX US BETWEEN THE DEBT AND THE ASSETS IN QUESTION. SINCE WE HAVE SET -ASIDE THE MATTER RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF PIECES OF LAND/PLOT AS ELIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW. 5.6 FOR THE SAME REASONING, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE TERMS DIRECTED IN WTA NO. 01/JP/2017 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2006-07. THUS, THI S GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, WTA OF THE ASSESSEE IN WTA NO. 05 /JP/2017 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. WTA NO.06/JP/2017. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP WTA NO 06/JP/2017 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,83 ,94,253/- IN RETURNED WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPROVED/AGRIC ULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS ASSESSING MARKET VALUE OF RS. 5,8 3,95,253/- AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT BY ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THOSE ASSETS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHE REBY HE HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF DEBTS OF RS. 1,85,96,165/-(RS. 30,39,459/- + RS. 1,55,56,706/- CLAIMED TO BE UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING THE TAXABLE ASSETS INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. 3. THAT APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AME ND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 7.1 THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO WTA NO. 05/JP/2017 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2007-08. THE RESPECTIVE REPRES ENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS WERE ADDRESSED IN WTA NO. 05/JP/2017. FOR THE SAME REASONING GIVEN IN WTA NO. 05/JP/2017, BOTH TH E GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTI ON GIVEN IN PARA 4.3 AND 5.6 OF THIS ORDER IN WTA NO. 05/JP/2017. 8. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE WTA OF THE ASSE SSEE I.E. WTA NOS. 05 & 06/JP/2017 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 31/10/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE DCWT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT (A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE WTA NO. 05 & 06/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 12 WTA NOS.05 & 06/JP/2017. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR.