TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....among the old and the new management and that the office of the directors did not function for several days and due to that the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The Ld. A.R. has further brought our attention to the fact that in this case, a common order was passed by the WTA relating to A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. The assessee under the wrong impression filed a common appeal agitating the said order. However, he deposited the fees for filing the three appeals. He has also stated that the another mistake was committed by the assessee that he filed form No.36 which is prescribed for filing appeals relating to income tax matters. The assessee was supposed to file Form -F which is prescribed for filing wealth tax appeals. When the defect was reported by the registry, the assessee filed separate appeal forms for all the three appeals. He, therefore, has stated that in filing the forms in the prescribed manner relating to the other two years, the registry has taken the delay as of 309 days whereas in fact the actual delay in filing the appeal is of 9 days. There was no deliberate action or intention on the part of the assessee in delaying the filing of appeal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and be adjudicated upon." 5. We may further point out that for the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has taken another ground which read as under: "3. The CIT(A) erred in assessing the value of land in respect of 56,400/- sq. yds as on 31.03.2007 as against 55,500 Sq. Yrds. without appreciating that value of land in respect of 29,000 sq. yds as on 31.03.2007 is exempt as the same was held as stock-in-trade for a period of ten years from the date of conversion." 6. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has in fact raised three effective issues relating to the appeals of the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was the owner of leasehold industrial land admeasuring 56629 sq. yds. in Jaipur. The land was taken on lease from M/s. Jaipur Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. by the assessee vide registered lease deed dated 30.09.1964 for a period of 99 years which was subsequently extended in 1968 for a lease period of 999 years. It is observed from the record that the aforesaid leasehold land located within Jaipur city area was converted into stock-in-trade of real estate business of the assessee from time to time for the purpose of its commercial exploitation. That 25500 sq. yds. o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer for determining the fair market value of the land for the financial years relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. In view of this, we direct the AO to refer the matter to the Govt. Valuation Officer to arrive at the fair market value of the land separately for the relevant assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively. 9. The next contention raised by the Ld. A.R. has been that alternatively the AO be directed to adopt the fair market value as determined by the registered valuer appointed by the assessee, the report of whom was submitted by the assessee before the Ld. CWT (A). Since we have already directed the AO to refer the matter to the valuation officer, hence we reject this alternate contention of the Ld. A.R. 10. The next contention raised by the Ld. A.R. is that the Ld. CWT (A) has wrongly calculated the area of the asset which was converted into stock in trade. He has contended that the total area to which the wealth tax liability was attracted was 55500 sq. yds. and not 56400 sq. yds. He has invited our attention in this respect to the table given in para 4.33 of the impugned order of the Ld. CWT (A). We find that prima-facie there appears to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 years. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of "Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax; 2010] 189 TAXMAN 225 (KER.) has held that for the purpose of levy of wealth tax , assets are classified as two categories, one as productive and the other as non-productive. Under the provisions of the amended Act, tax is levied only on the non-productive assets such as residential house, urban land, jewellery, bullion, motor cars, etc. Keeping in mind the exemption available to productive assets, there is no scope for levy of tax during the period of construction of the productive asset, namely, commercial building, by utilizing the urban land. In other words, once the non-productive asset like urban land is converted to a productive asset like a building which qualifies for exemption, then the assessee can start availing of exemption even during the period of conversion of such non-productive asset to productive asset. The following observations of the Hon'ble High Court are also relevant: "4. A Division Bench to this Court had occasion to consider the scope of drastic amendment introduced to the Wealth Tax Act with effect from 1-4-1995 based on Dr. Raja Chelliah C....