TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Asstt.Year 2000-01 and WTA No.10/Ahd/2013 is against the order of the ld.CWT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 25.3.2013 passed for the Asstt.Year 2003-04 under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The ld.AO has passed penalty vide orders dated 30-3-2009 and 17-3-2011 in the Asstt.Years 2003-04 and 2000-2001 respectively. WTA No.9/Ahd/2013 has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, first we take up the WTA No.9/Ahd/2013, which is quantum appeal. 2. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,34,54,600/- which was added by the AO in the net wealth of the assessee in respect of Ahmedabad Land, Vejalpur Land (Jodhpur and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laws relied on by appellant. After careful consideration of facts, submission and ratio of various case laws, I am inclined to accept the contention of appellant that land situated at village Ambli, Vejalpur and Makarba are agricultural land and cannot be considered as urban land as per provisions of section 2(2)(ea)(v) of the Act. Similar issue for similar land was considered by me in respect of appellant for the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08. In my order dated 19.10.2012 in appeal No.CIT(A)-XV/ACWT/Cir.9/289/09-10 for the lands at Ambli, Vejalpur and Makarba after consideration of facts, contentions of both WTO as well as appellant at para 5, it was held that- "I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the land and even if it remains barren or uncultivated for some time and even grass only is raised on the land, it would continue to be an agri. Land. The sale of land at Rs. 175 per sq. yard in the asst. year 79-80 would not change the character of the land." It is therefore, respectfully following the ratio of Hon'ble High Court including Gujarat High Court, the contention of A.O. and addition made by A.O. is not justified. The A.O. is directed to delete the addition so made. The appellant gets relief accordingly." It is therefore, in this case, on the similar facts and for same lands (In A.Y. 07-08 appellant's appropriate share of these lands were taken while in impugned A.Y. 2003-04, the Id.CWT(A) ordered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dabad dated 19.10.2012 for A.Y.2007-2008. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: "1. The ld.CWT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 47,68,180/-, Rs. 68,47,600/- and Rs. 59,84,000/- made in respect of Ambali, Vejalpur and Makarba village lands, respectively by holding these lands as agricultural lands. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CWT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO." 3. The learned DR supported the assessment order, whereas, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that although this issue is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for A.Y.2000-2001 in WTA No.28/Ahd/2009 dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight of the retrospective amendment, as per which clause (ea) of section 2 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was amended. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose." 8. There is no dispute on facts. The finding of the ld.CWT(A) extracted supra would indicate that the ld.First Appellate Authority has relied upon the reasoning given by his predecessor. That reasoning has already been set aside by the Tribunal for re-adjudication. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the impugned order. The issue is restored to the file of ld.CWT(A) for re-adjudication in view of the Tribunal's order passed in the Asstt.year 2007-08. 9. Now, we take up penalty appeals in the Asstt.Year 2003-04 an....