2016 (4) TMI 896 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal invalidates reassessments; upholds urban land classification as capital asset. Joint Development Agreement doesn't transfer ownership. No deduction for refundable deposits.

The tribunal invalidated the reassessments due to lack of proper service of notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. However, it upheld the ... Computation of net wealth of the assessee-company - whether the lands, which are undisputedly urban land within the meaning of provisions of 2(e)(a) of the Act, which are subject matter of JDA can be included in the net wealth of the assessee-company ? - Held that:- It is settled principle of law that the finding in income-tax proceedings is not relevant for the purpose of wealth-tax proceedings but the crucial facts to be noticed in this case is that the assessee company was not able to demonstrate before us that the lands were held as stock-in-trade by the assessee-company with any material. Therefore, unless contrary is proved, it is presumed that treatment given in the books of account is correct and therefore, we are unable to agree with the assessee-company that the lands are held as stock-in-trade. In the case of Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. DCWT (2007 (2) TMI 161 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), held that an asset, which was not registered and title of the property had not been passed on to the company, cannot be included in the taxable wealth of a company. In light of the abovementioned legal position, we hold that the assessee-company continues to be owner of the lands and is liable to wealth-tax. With regard to the claim of the assessee-company that refundable deposits received from M/s.Classic Enterprises in terms of the development agreement should be allowed as a deduction from the value of the assets computed, it is undisputed fact that refundable deposit was received subsequent to acquisition of the asset. The refundable deposit has no nexus with the acquisition of assets in question. Therefore, the claim of the assessee-company cannot be allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of reassessment due to lack of notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.2. Classification of urban land as stock-in-trade or capital asset for wealth tax purposes.3. Impact of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on ownership and taxability of the land.4. Determination of fair market value (FMV) and consideration of refundable deposits in valuation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reassessment due to Lack of Notice under Section 17:The appellant argued that the reassessment was invalid as no valid notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was issued and served within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] upheld the reassessment despite the lack of documentary evidence for the issuance and service of the notice. The tribunal found that the revenue could not demonstrate from the assessment records that the notice was issued and posted through registered post. Therefore, the tribunal held that there was no proper service of notice and allowed the grounds of appeal regarding this issue.2. Classification of Urban Land as Stock-in-Trade or Capital Asset:The assessee contended that the urban land should be deemed as stock-in-trade and not liable to wealth tax. The CWT(A) dismissed this argument, noting that the land was shown as an investment (capital asset) in the books of account and that profits from its sale were treated as capital gains in the income tax assessment for the year 2008-09. The tribunal agreed with the CWT(A), stating that the assessee could not demonstrate that the land was held as stock-in-trade with any material evidence. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the land should be treated as a capital asset for wealth tax purposes.3. Impact of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on Ownership and Taxability of the Land:The assessee argued that the land, being subject to a JDA, should not be included in the net wealth as the possession was given to the developer, and thus, the assessee ceased to be the owner. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, which clarified that a power of attorney or JDA does not transfer ownership or interest in the property. The tribunal held that the JDA only authorized the developer to develop the property and did not transfer ownership. Consequently, the assessee remained the owner of the land, and its value was includable in the net wealth for tax purposes.4. Determination of Fair Market Value (FMV) and Consideration of Refundable Deposits in Valuation:The assessee argued that the FMV determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) did not account for the impact of the JDA and that the refundable deposit received from the developer should be deducted from the FMV. The CWT(A) rejected these arguments, stating that the refundable deposit was not a debt incurred in connection with acquiring the asset. The tribunal upheld this view, noting that the deposit was received after the acquisition of the asset and had no nexus with it. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the claim for deducting the refundable deposit from the FMV.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeals concerning the lack of proper service of notice under section 17, thereby invalidating those reassessments. However, it dismissed the appeals related to the classification of land as stock-in-trade, the impact of the JDA on ownership, and the determination of FMV, thus upholding the CWT(A)'s decisions on these issues. The final order pronounced that some appeals were allowed while others were dismissed based on the specific grounds raised.