- (1.) is appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1990-91 is directed against the order of the CWT(A)-II, Calcutta, dt. 10th Feb., 1995, whereby he partly allowing the assessees appeal upheld the WTOs order in bringing within the ambit of WT Act the flat owned by the appellant-company.
(2.) Shortly stated the facts leading to this appeal are that the assessee-appellant, being a private limited company, is a property developer. It is also alleged by the assessee that the flats developed by the assessee are meant for sale and till a suitable purchaser is available, the assessee temporarily lets out the flats on rent with a view to defray the interest on borrowings. The WTO had brought to tax the let out portion of the assessees building situated at Camac Street, being 1282.66 sq. m., and also 940 sq. m. out of 1440 sq. m. being the portion of the assessees own office use in Camac Street building together with the incomplete portions of the assessees three buildings situated at Camac Street, Wood Street and Purandas Road, shown by the assessee as work-in-progress. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee-appellant preferred its first appeal before the CWT(A) who, vide his impugned order, disposed of the appeal as mentioned above. The assessee, aggrieved thereby, has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
(3.) The assessee originally raised two grounds of appeal and then raised two additional grounds of appeal on 10th July, 1996, and further raised five additional grounds on 15th July, 1996, as mentioned below : Original grounds of appeal : (1) For that the order of the learned CWT(A) is contrary to the facts and the circumstances of the case. (2) For the learned CWT(A) grossly erred in upholding the order of the AO treating the stock-in-trade (Building in progress) of Rs. 1,49,56,002 as part of the taxable wealth in utter disregard to the provisions contained in s. 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983. It is prayed that the aforesaid sum should be deleted from the computation of net wealth of the appellant. Additional grounds of appeal raised on 10th July, 1996 : (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in bringing into the ambit of wealth-tax, the value of the let out portion of the property valued by him at Rs. 1,30,77,362 and thereby upholding the applicability of s. 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983, to the let out portion of the property which is the business assets of the appellant. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in computing the gross wealth and gross assets as per balance sheet according to certain calculation which are not as per law and thereby upholding the action of the AO in assessing the net wealth of the appellant at Rs. 1,37,28,900 as against the return wealth of Rs. 65,281. Additional grounds of appeal raised on 15th July, 1996 : (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in valuation of let out portion of the property at 12.5 times of the net maintainable rent. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in taxing to wealth the own office (40.10 sq. m.) portion used for business by the appellant and also the work-in-progress as chargeable to wealth-tax. (iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in computing the total assets as per balance sheet at Rs. 3,55,61,835 which actually is not the actual asset position as per balance sheet. (iv) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in calculating the proportionate liability to be allowed against the gross wealth at Rs. 1,78,55,616 which is erroneous. (v) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in allowing only 500 sq. m. for office store and employees residence in computing taxable asset and thereby giving a deduction of Rs. 7,95,656.;