AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the Assessing Officer assessed 32,234 sq ft of land in Survey No.539/2, 540/part/541 and 542, in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore. The Assessing Officer found that the wealth of the assessee otherwise assessable has escaped assessment, therefore, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. In respect of the land at Katkapi, the assessee claims that it is not an asset u/s clause(b) of Explanation to sec. 2(ea) of the Wealthtax Act. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the land in question was not permitted for construction and a civil suit was also pending before the Sub-court, Coimbatore. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and found that what was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less than 9 mtrs. Therefore, the CWT(A) is not correct in saying that the subject matter of land at Sowripalayam is not an asset. 3. On the contrary, Shri N Anush Shanker, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the only dispute is with regard to land at Sowripalayam. According to the ld. Representative, sec. 2(ea) Explanation 1(b) clearly says that the land on which construction is not permissible under the existing law of the land cannot be construed as an asset. The assessee, in fact, applied for approval of a multistoried building before the local authority and the local authority hesitated to grant approval since the access road is not available. The assessee was able to negotiate with the neighbouring land owners and acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-court has also prayed for mandatory injunction restraining the assessee from altering the physical features of the property. In view of the pendency of the suit, according to the ld. Representative, the land in question cannot be construed as an asset. On a query from the Bench, the ld. Representative clarified that no interim order was passed by the Subordinate judge, Coimbatore, on the pending suit. Therefore, according to the ld. Representative, the CIT(A) has rightly found that the land in question is not an asset. The ld. Representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Amrit Lal Jindal & Sons (HUF) vs WTO, [2010] 327 ITR 161 and submitted that when the construction was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d commercial complex, the assessee has to necessarily provide not less than 12.5 mtrs of access road. Therefore, what was prohibited is construction of a multistoried commercial complex during the year under consideration. The Development Control Regulations and the building rule of the local body do not prohibit the construction of residential unit on the land at Sowripalayam. It is common knowledge that when the land was treated as a residential zone, definitely there should be a path way to access the land. It may not be to the expectation of the assesseecompany but there should be an access point to reach the residential land. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it may not be correct to say that the construction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te among the shareholders of M/s Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd and a sum of Rs. 68 lakhs was due to the abovesaid Smt. V Kamalam. The above said Smt. V Kamalam has also called for a board meeting by issuing notice as required under the Companies Act. The said Smt. V Kamalam admits that the suit land was in the name of defendants who executed the sale deed in favour of the assessee. The fact remains that the subject matter of the land stands in the name of the vendees who executed the sale deed in favour of the assessee-company and the assessee-company acquired an interest over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour. The civil suit filed by the said Smt. V Kamalam may be one of the factor to be taken into cons....