TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2002-03 are reproduced as under: "1. That the Ld. CWT(A) has erred in sustaining the assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment. 1(a) The CWT(A) has erred in sustaining an order which is bad in law on various counts. 2. The Ld. CWT(A) has erred in holding that the levy of Wealth tax on agricultural land through the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was justified. 3. That without prejudice to ground No. 1 & 2, the Ld. CWT(A) has erred in not allowing suitable reduction in the value of land at village Waryana which was low lying and was adjoining to the water body. 4. That the Ld. CWT(A) has erred in sustaining the value of land at Village Madhar by applying the general rates." 2. The facts in each of the appeal before us are ide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO the assessee submitted that the land on which agricultural operation was being carried out could not be subjected to wealth tax and that it had not been verified that the lands in these villages represented concealed wealth. The AO noted that as per the Jamabandi filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was the owner of the lands falling within these villages and all the villages fell within the definition of 'urban land' under the Wealth Tax Act. He also referred to the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of Tara Singh S/o Jai Singh (supra) to hold that agricultural land falling within distance of 8 km from the limit of Municipal Corporation would fall within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he residential house of the assessee was situated in the village and not on the agricultural land. He, therefore, held that the property was not a farm house or residential property. The AO also noted that assessee had himself claimed exemption for this residential house in the return of wealth and he did not allow any further benefit for the same to the assessee. In respect of the land measuring 2 acre 15 marla situated at village Madhar, the value of Rs.10,46,875/- was arrived at by the AO at the rates prescribed by the Tehsildar. The addition on account of value of land at village Waryana and Village Madar was worked out at Rs.29,70,000/-. 4. Before the Ld. CWT(A), the assessee made the submissions, which were rejected as regards grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the limits of municipal corporation or within 8 km of municipal limits, would be chargeable to Wealth Tax. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Charnpal Sigh Mann and Jagraj Singh Mann in WTA Nos 1 and 2 of 2003 dated 8.9.2003, have held that agricultural land which falls within municipal limits was chargeable to Wealth tax. The ITAT, Amritsar Bench has decided similar matters in WTA Nos. 1 and 2 (Asr)/2009 in the case of Sh. Gurdip Singh Nagra, WTA No. 25(Asr)/2009 in the case of Sh. Rajinder Singh Nagra and WTA Nos. 13 to 17(Asr)/2009 in the case of Sh.Tara Singh vide their combined order dated 16.9.2009 and have upheld the order of the AO levying Wealth Tax in respect of agricultural land falling within the municipal li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue of notice u/s 17 was filed only on 15.12.2008 when the assessment was getting barred by limitation. The assessment order was passed on 17.12.2008. Since the issue of notice u/s 17 was based on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that non- disposal of the objection to the issue of the notice u/s 17 by the AO will not be fatal to the assessment. In the case of Sunil Bhaseen vs. CIT 179 Taxman 148 (P&H), a similar plea of non-disposal of objection against issue of notice u/s 148 was taken by the assessee to contend that the assessment was invalid in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Deriveshafts (supra). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that mere non disposal of a technical obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.2. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CWT(A), which is well reasoned one. Hence, grounds No.1, 1(a) & 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 8. As regards grounds No. 3 & 4, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CWT(A) in para 5 & 6 where the Ld. CWT(A) with regard to the land in village Wariana has rightly excluded a pond from the definition of the land and in respect of the balance low lying land in the same village and rebate of 20% has been has been considered as reasonable. There was nothing brought on record by the assessee before any of the authorities below or before us with regard to claim of rebate of 50% with regard to the land at village Wariana. As ....