IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1314 OF 2005 IN WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.539 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri. Shah Rukh Khan. ..Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with B.M.Chatterji & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Subhash Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is a delay of 69 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the motion. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.539 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri. Shah Rukh Khan. ..Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with B.M.Chatterji & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Subhash Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions. A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,86,69,494/- being the estimated value of the said property from the taxable net wealth of the assessee herein, and inter alia observing that the provisions of Section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act read with Section 269-UA(f) of the Act, as applied by the A.O. in adding the said amount was incorrect? B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was right in disregarding the vital facts that the assessee herein spent a substantial amount of Rs.2,45,71,851/- in the subsequent years upto 31.3.2001 for extensive renovation of the said property which makes the assessee herein the de-facto, owner (as against the tenant, as observed by the ITAT) of the property, inter alia in light of the provisions of Section-4(8)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act? 2. The learned Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal held that the premises which were taken on lease by the respondent would not be an asset for the purposes of computing wealth tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has clearly recorded a finding based on the agreement which was produced that the tenancy is a tenancy from month to month. 3. We may gainfully referred to Section-4(8) of the Wealth Tax Act. (8) A person - (a) who is allowed to take or retain possession of any building or part thereof in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; b) who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding one year) in or with respect of any building or part thereof by virtue of such transaction as is referred to in clause (f) of Section 269UA of the Income Tax Act, shall be deemed to be the owner of that building or part thereof and the value of such building or part shall be included in computing the net wealth of such person. 4. In the instant case therefore, as the premises has been taken on lease from month to month basis, the asset cannot be included under "net wealth". Apart from that there is a finding recorded that the owner of the property M/s. Trambak Polypack Pvt. Ltd. for the relevant period has offered the very same asset as its property in its wealth tax return and that was accepted by the department. Considering the aforesaid findings, in our opinion, Question-A as framed would not arise in in the appeal. 5. In so far as Question-B is concerned, the mere fact that an assessee as in the instant case the respondent was the tenant has expended certain monies for the purpose of repairs would not bring that assets under the expression "net wealth". In our opinion, therefore, the said question also would not arise. 6. Appeal accordingly dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)