2018 (11) TMI 107 - HC - Wealth-tax

Land classified as 'urban land' under Wealth Tax Act upheld as capital asset; appeals dismissed

Devineni Avinash Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the subject land qualified as 'urban land' and was deemed an asset under the Wealth Tax Act. The Court ... Capital asset - exemption from wealth ta act - whether Subject land is an “asset” within the meaning of Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- If the appellants are held to have treated the subject land as a “capital asset”, the assessing authority would have treated transfer of the said asset, pursuant to the joint development agreement, as liable to tax as capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act; and the very fact that they did not, reflects their understanding that the assessee intended to treat this asset only as a stock-in-trade for the purpose of carrying on business. It is possible that the assessing authority was of the view that execution of a joint development agreement did not automatically result in the transfer of the asset. The mere fact that the appellants-assessees were not subjected to tax towards capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act would not necessitate the inference that the subject “land” was treated as stock-in-trade for the purpose of carrying on business; and is, therefore, exempt from tax under Section 3(2) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final Court of fact. An appeal to the High Court lies, under Section 27A(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. We are satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, and its conclusions on law, are not such as to necessitate interference in proceedings under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the subject land is considered 'urban land' and thus an 'asset' under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.2. Whether the subject land was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade or as a capital asset.3. Whether the intention of the assessee to carry on business using the subject land can be inferred from the facts and circumstances.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the subject land is considered 'urban land' and thus an 'asset' under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:The core issue revolves around whether the subject land qualifies as 'urban land' under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, which would make it an 'asset' liable to wealth tax. The Tribunal and authorities below determined that the land was indeed urban land and thus an asset subject to wealth tax. The appellants argued that the land was stock-in-trade and not an asset, as it was intended for development and sale, not for investment.2. Whether the subject land was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade or as a capital asset:The appellants claimed the land was purchased with the intention of carrying on business and should be treated as stock-in-trade. They cited the immediate development agreement entered into the day after the purchase. However, the Tribunal found that the land was shown as a fixed asset in the balance sheet and the returns were filed in Form No. ITR-2, which is for individuals not having income from business or profession. This indicated that the land was treated as a capital asset, not stock-in-trade. The Tribunal also noted that no development had taken place on the land for over a decade, and the appellants had not carried on any business before or after the purchase.3. Whether the intention of the assessee to carry on business using the subject land can be inferred from the facts and circumstances:The Tribunal and authorities below concluded that the appellants' intention to carry on business using the subject land was not evidenced by the material on record. The mere execution of a development agreement did not suffice to prove the land was intended as stock-in-trade. The appellants' returns and balance sheets indicated the land was treated as a capital asset. The Tribunal emphasized that an isolated transaction does not automatically qualify as an adventure in the nature of trade. The appellants had not demonstrated any business activity related to the land, nor had they shown any intention to carry on business using the land.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the subject land is an asset under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act and is liable to wealth tax. The appellants failed to prove the land was held as stock-in-trade for business purposes. The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was affirmed. The Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act.