Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Sahara India Finance & Investment ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 2 February, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'D', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM
WTA No. 37/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95
WTA No. 38/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1998-99
WTA No. 39/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00
WTA No. 40/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01
Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Sahara India Finance &
Tax, Central Cirle-6, Investment Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala
New Delhi Complex, Aliganj,
Lucknow (UP)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AADCS4471K
WTA No. 34/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10
Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Sahara India Finance &
Tax, Central Cirle-6, Investment Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala
New Delhi Complex, Aliganj,
Lucknow (UP)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AADCS4481M
CO No. 299/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95
CO No. 300/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1998-99
CO No. 301/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00
CO No. 302/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01
M/s Sahara India Finance & Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Investment Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Central Cirle-6,
Complex, Aliganj, New Delhi
Lucknow (UP)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AADCS4471K
2 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013
COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014
Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd.
CO No. 175/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10
M/s Sahara India Finance & Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Investment Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Central Cirle-6,
Complex, Aliganj, New Delhi
Lucknow (UP)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AADCS4481M
Assessee by : Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2017
ORDER
Per Bench:
These appeals by the department and the Cross Objections by the assessee are arising out of the separate orders of ld. CWT(A)-I, New Delhi each dated 14.05.2010 for the assessment years 1994-95, 1997-98 to 2000-01 and dated 21.09.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals alongwith the CO's were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014 Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd.
3. First we will deal with the departmental appeal in WTA No. 37/Del/2010 for the assessment year 1994-95. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:
"1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the building which had been valued by the AO at Rs. 1,90,34,883/- as exempt from Wealth Tax u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act whereas it had been valued and verified by the AO that building was not used for any official purpose.
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the building as covered u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act even though such claim was made by the assessee through the belated letter beyond time for filing return.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal."
4. The only grievance of the department in this appeal relates to the valuation of the property situated at 7, Kapoorthala House, Lucknow, which was claimed to have been used for the official purposes and did not fall in the 4 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013 COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014 Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd. ambit of taxable assets within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
5. In other appeals, the grievance of the department for the assessment years 1998-99, 2000-01 and 2009-10 relates to the valuation of the land situated at Village Bakkas, Mastemau Khurd at Sultanpur Road, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, Distt. Lucknow claimed to have been situated outsided 8 km from the limit of the Municipal Corporation.
6. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that these issues have already been settled vide order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' in WTA No. 3/Luc/2002 and CO No. 63/Luc/2004 for the assessment year 1997-98. It was further submitted that the said order was a subject matter of the departmental appeal in WTA No. 1/2006 before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court at New Delhi wherein vide order dated 20.03.2007, the view taken by the ITAT was affirmed. It was further stated that against the said order dated 20.03.2007 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the department preferred SLP(Civil) CC 4346/2008 before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein vide order dated 28.03.2008. The SLP was dismissed (copy of the aforesaid orders were 5 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013 COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014 Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd. furnished which are placed on record). The aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the ld. DR.
7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the identical issues were subject matter of the departmental appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in WTA No. 1/2006 wherein vide order dated 20.03.2007, it has been held as under:
"Two issues have arisen in this appeal. One is whether the land owned by the Assessee is within the urban limits so as to make it includible in the net wealth of the Assessee. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal that the land is more than 20 kilometers away from the urban limits of the city of Lucknow and, therefore, it cannot be included for the purpose of wealth tax.
The second issue that has arisen is that whether the building bearing No. 7 Kapoorthala, Lucknow was liable to be included for the purposes of computing the net wealth of the Assessee. It was found, again as a matter of fact, that for subsequent assessment years the Assessing Officer had himself excluded the building for computing the net wealth of the Assessee. In view of this, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal 6 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013 COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014 Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd. directed the Assessing Officer to follow his own orders.
On both the issues, the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the decision given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
In view of the fact that no argument was advanced by the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal accepted the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Dismissed."
8. The aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was a subject matter of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC 4346/2008 wherein vide order dated 28.03.2008, the SLP was dismissed by observing that there was no reason to interfere on the fact of this case. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the confirmed view that the issues under consideration are now settled in favour of the assessee. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these appeals of the department.
7 WTA Nos. 37 to 40/Del/2010 & 34/Del/2013COs. 299 to 302/Del/2010 & 175/Del/2014 Sahara India Finance & Investment Ltd.
9. As regards to the CO's filed by the assessee, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has the instruction not to press these Cross Objections and gave in writing as under:
"Since the matter stands covered by order of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court in case of assessee for subsequent year, CO's stand withdrawn - copies enclosed for record and perusal."
Sd/-
(Dinesh Verma) Advocate 30.01.2017
10. In view of the above, the CO's filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
11. In the result, the appeals of the department and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 02/02/2017) Sd/- Sd/-
(Beena Pillai) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 02/02/2017
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR