TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessment Years 2001- 02 and 2002-03 respectively, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeals. 1.1 These appeals were admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the land on which the building was under construction is to be included in the net wealth for the purpose of charge of wealth tax u/s.2(ea) and was not excluded u/s.40 clause (v) r.w explanation 1 ? 2. The assessing officer had assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,50,66,500/- vide his order dated 13.03.2006 as against the returned income of Rs. 1,10,696/- in case of assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 1,58,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order passed by CIT(A). Identical issue had come up before this Court by way of Wealth Tax Reference No. 267 of 1996 and this Court has observed as under: "8. The issues referred for our opinion are as to whether the value of the factory building and the research building under construction and not in actual use for business were liable to tax and whether by allowing the claim of the assessee, the appellate Tribunal had caused violation to the plain and simple language used in section 40 (3) (vi). Both the issues clearly referred to and were exclusively related with the provisions and language of clause (vi) of sub-section (3) of section 40. Therefore, the application and amendment of clause (v)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in Prem Nath Motors (supra). It may be apposite to quote here the following observations of the Supreme Court in its Three Judge Bench decision in Ahmed G.H.Ariff And Others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta [1970 (76) ITR 471]: ".....It was held that the definition of ?assets? in section 2 (e) and that of ?net wealth? in section 2(m) were comprehensive provisions and all assets were included in the net wealth by the very definition. Therefore, when section 3 imposed the charge of wealth-tax on the net wealth it necessarily included in it every description of property of the assessee, movable and immovable, barring the exceptions stated in section 2 (e) and other provisions of the Act. We are in entire concurrence with that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealth-tax on such assets. 9. Accordingly, we decide the reference in favour of the revenue with the opinion that the appellate Tribunal was in error in deleting the value of the factory and research buildings which were under construction and not in actual use for the purpose of business as contemplated under the provisions of section 40 (3) (vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 and that in allowing the claim of the assessee, the Tribunal had misread the plain and simple language of the said provisions. We place on record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered at our request by learned senior advocate Mr.S.N.Soparkar. " 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the CIT(A) was not just....