TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee owns a residential apartment and a plot of land at Hyderabad. The WTO issued show cause letter, based on the information obtained from the Jubillee Housing Cooperative Society asking the assessee to file return of net wealth. Assessee filed return of net wealth in form BA declaring net wealth of Rs. 14.00 lakhs. In the said return of wealth, assessee at Column "Exempted Asset" also mentioned that he owns 'urban land' admeasuring 2140 sq. Yards (1790 sq.meters). Assessee also mentioned that he was claiming exemption as construction was not permissible under the Municipal Corporation Law as there was no Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) Certificate. 3. AO obtained information from the SRO and assessed the value of land at Rs. 7,49,00,000 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been acquired by the govt.and the assessee had only a right to receive compensation. The AR also relied on the decision in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation vs. CWT (1971) 82 ITR 154 (S.C). 5. The AR also submitted that without prejudice to the plea that the land was exempt from wealth tax, the valuation could not be taken at market value, but the value which the assessee would get as compensation under the ULCA. The AR relied on the decision in the case of Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd vs. CWT (2012) 345 ITR 456 (Guj.) in this regard. 6. The CIT (A) observed that out of the total land of 1790 sq. meters, a mere 790 sq.meters was the subject matter of ULCA proceedings. Hence there can, be no dispute with regard to the valuation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is to be determined as would be available if the property is sold by a notional willing seller to a notional willing buyer on the valuation date itself. If sale of the land or the property is subject to restrictions under certain Central or State legislation, the property or the land has to be valued only after taking note of the restrictions and prohibitions which will have the effect of depressing the value which the land would fetch if sold free from any restrictions and prohibitions, but at the same time, it cannot be said that it would fetch only the maximum compensation payable under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The competent authority had neither issued any notification under section 10(1) nor under section 10(3). It was for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evy of penalty, the CTI (A) held as under: "14. However, the considerations for levy of penalty are different from those of an assessment order. The failure to file a return or the failure to treat the land as a taxable asset was the result of a difference of opinion regarding its liability to tax. Following the decision in the cae of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (S.C), the levy of penalty in this case is directed to be deleted". 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the addition of Rs. 7,49,00,000 being market value of the Plot as per the Sub Registrar Office. 11. The Department is in appeal against the deletion of the penalty imposed u/s 18(1)(c). 12. The ld C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment and the assessee had only a right to receive compensation. 15. It was submitted that the Assessee had made an application under section 20 for exemption for surrender of excess land. However the said exemption was granted on 7/4/2008. It is also submitted that wealth tax is levied on the wealth as on the last day of the financial year. The ld Counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation" reported at 82 ITR 154 wherein it was held that subsequent events regularizing the title or other such events cannot be taken into consideration in determining the value of the wealth. 16. The ld Counsel further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 82 ITR 154 has stated as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al land of 1790 sq.meters, there is no dispute with reference to the fact that the land is subjected to proceedings under the ULCA. There is also no dispute that the ULCA Authorities have declared 790 sq. meters as excess land. Even though the ld CIT (A) has stated that final statement u/s 9 of ULCA had not been prepared, it was the contention that the assessee has preferred to make an application u/s 20 for exemption for surrender of excess land. It is also a fact that the said exemption was granted on 7.4.2008 i.e. beyond the A.Y under consideration. It is also a fact that the assessee is not certain about which portion of the land being 790sq.meters declared excess would be demarcated and acquired by the Govt. Therefore, there is uncerta....