TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years as follows: WTA NO.42/MUM/07: VALUATION AS ON 31/3/1999: Description of land Area in Sq. Mtrs. Rate in Sq. Mtr. Amount Vacant land 11403.52 Rs.5057/- Rs.5,76,67,601/- Surplus vacant land 14051.40 Rs.4,775/- Rs.6,70,95,435/- WTA NO.43/MUM/07: VALUATION AS ON 31/3/2000: Description of land Area in Sq. Mtrs. Rate in Sq. Mtr. Amount Vacant land 15715.75 Rs.4810/- Rs.7,55,92,758/- WTA NO.44/MUM/07: VALUATION AS ON 31/3/2001: Description of land Area in Sq. Mtrs. Rate in Sq. Mtr. Amount Vacant land 11836.91 Rs.5326/- Rs.6,30,43,383/- WTA NO.45/MUM/07: VALUATION AS ON 31/3/2002: Description of land Area in Sq. Mtrs. Rate in Sq. Mtr. Amount Vacant land 11836.91 Rs.5821/- Rs.6,89,02,653/- 3. The assessees in the computation of the wealth have however reduced the following areas while computing the value of the assets. Asst. Year Total vacant land area Total surplus land area 1999-2000 11073.82 Sq.Mtr. 2128.20 Sq.Mtr. 2000-2001 13654.95 Sq.Mtr. --- 2001-2002 9786.11 Sq. Mtr. --- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....According to the definition of urban land, "land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority" is not included in the definition of urban land. Since M/s. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashray Dwellers P. Ltd. was constructing building on the land owned by the assessee with approval of the appropriate authority, the assessee sought to exclude those areas of land occupied by building which was under construction by M/s. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashray Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. In this regard the assessee had filed a certificate from M/s. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashray Developers Ltd. certifying the land area of which they were carrying out construction in the various assessment years as follows: "This is to certify that the Construction is in progress as on 31/03/1999 on following CTS numbers: CTS Number Land Area in Sq. Mts Project Name 921/1 18723.90 Regency I,II,III,IV 921/2 5162.80 Regency I,II,III,IV 921/5 4345.60 Regency I,II,III,IV 921/7 2128.20 School 921/8 5363.80 Regency I,II,III,IV 921/9 7274.10 Reserved Plot 921/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich has been constructed with the approval of the Appropriate Authority. According to the CWT(A) in English grammar - the auxiliary verb 'has been' would denote perfect tense i.e. a thing which just has been completed or what has in the immediate past and it does not denote or connote the present tense. That is, 'Has Been' cannot be equated with 'Is'. In this regard, the CWT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of F. S. Gandhi vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax - 184 - ITR - 34 (SC) has held as per head note at page 35 as follows :- "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, (i) that, in view of the words, "for a period not exceeding six years" which follow the word available" in section 2(e) (2)(iii) [or the earlier section 2(e)(v) which was identical], the word "is" must be construed as referring the present and the future and, in that sense, it would mean that the interest in property is available and is to be available in future for a period not exceeding six years. The word "is" cannot be construed to mean " has been". The question as to whether the interest in property should be included or excluded from the assets of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntical to the facts of the case of the assessees in these appeals. The facts of the case before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court were that the assessee which was a HUF during the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee owned a property at Sy. Nos. 67/2, 67/3, 67/4 and 67/5 at Adugodi Village and portion of Sy. No. 151 at Koramangala Village of Begur Hobli of Bangalore South Taluk. This property was given to M/s. Prestige Estates Properties (P) Ltd., Bangalore, under various agreements for construction of residential flats. The assessee claimed that it had retained ownership of the land until flats are fully constructed and possession of the assessee's share was handed over to it. The development agreement constituted only permissive possession according to the assessee for the limited purpose of construction of flats. In the wealth tax proceedings, the Assessee claimed that since the building is being constructed, the same is exempt for the purpose of wealth-tax in terms of the meaning to be given to urban land. Admittedly, in the said case (as in the case of the Assessees in these appeals on hand), the building was not fully constructed. It was in the process of construction. After cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Constructed has its own meaning. Constructed would mean "fully constructed" as understood in the common parlance. The Tribunal unfortunately, without noticing the intention of the Legislature and the specific wording in the section has chosen to blindly follow its earlier order. If the order of the Tribunal is accepted then neither the owner nor the builder nor the occupant would pay any tax to the Government in terms of the Wealth-tax Act. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept that argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. On the other hand, we would accept the reasonable argument of the learned counsel for the Department in the matter of the proper understanding of the words "land occupied by any building which has been constructed", since that would fulfil the intention of the Legislature." The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also considered the decisions of Hon'ble Orissa High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.B. Pradhan(Infra) and Sardar Venkat Rao Krishna Rao Gujar (infra) "We must also refer to the judgment of the Orissa High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court as referred to by Sri Parthasarathi, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan vs. CWT, Hyderbad, 162 ITR 888 (SC), wherein the expression "belonging to assessee" has been held to be equivalent to legal ownership. The assessee, the Nizam of Hyderabad, had received full consideration for certain immovable properties from the purchasers but he had not executed any registered sale deeds in favour of the vendees. Whether those assets had to be excluded for the purpose of wealth tax Act or not was the question before the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court held "that the value of the properties were to be included in the net wealth of the assessee for the purpose of assessment to wealth-tax as they were assets belonging to him within the meaning of section 2(m) of The Wealth-fax Act, 1957. For all legal purposes the properties had to be treated a belonging to the assessee. The liability to wealth-tax arises because of the belonging of the asset and not otherwise. Mere possession, or joint possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of properly, would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of " net wealth" for it would ....