TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (4) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held in possession and in respect of which it had shown the value at Rs. 5,17,221 3. The WTO following his order in assessment year 1973-74 valued the agricultural lands at Rs. 5,20,000 and allowed statutory exemption, thereon. When the matter was carried in appeal, the learned AAC confirmed the valuation at Rs. 5,17,221 on two grounds. First was that the assessee itself had declared the value at Rs. 5,17,221 and therefore, this assessment had to be charged to wealth-tax. Secondly the lands were in possession of the assessee and the question of determination of the extent of land permissible of HUF under the Ceiling of Agricultural Holding Act (hereinafter described as the Land Ceiling Act) was under dispute and, therefore, it could not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have given due weight to the claim of the assessee in its protest letter that agricultural lands in excess of 40 acres were not includible in its net wealth. 7. Now coming to the point raised by the learned counsel with regard to chargeability of wealth-tax on agricultural lands measuring 1830 acres valued at Rs. 5,17,221, it was contended that the Addl. Commissioner who was the competent authority under the Act, for passing an order under s. 11 of the Land Ceiling Act, had passed an order on 16th March, 1967 wherein he held that the assessee was entitled to hold 949.35 acres only. Another order wherein the assessee was held to be entitled to hold only 75 acres of agricultural land. Again on 14th July, 1976 the competent authority held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e valuation date. Assets have been defined in s. 2 (e) of the Act and it includes property of every description except that excluded therein. Agricultural lands are included assets from asst. yr. 1970 onwards, these definitions will clearly shows that agricultural lands belonging to the assessee were chargeable to tax on the valuation dates relevant for assessment year under appeal. 10. The leaned counsel lastly contended that in view of the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, there was a prohibition on sale of Agricultural lands excess of the prescribed ceiling and therefore, there was no ready market for these lands. He invited our attention to s. 7 of the WT Act according to which the value of any asset has to be est....