TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals of the Revenue should be heard with the help of the Ld. DR for the Revenue and the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the statement of facts include that the assessee is an individual. Assessee filed his Wealth Tax Return on 20-03-2012 declaring total wealth at' Rs. 45,33,609/-. Assessee filed return beyond the time limit prescribed u/s.14(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and the then AO issued the notice u/s.17 on 07-05-2012 after recording the reason. Assessee vide his letter dated 01-06-2012 requested to consider his original return of wealth filed on 20-03-2012 as return of wealth filed against notice u/s.17 of the Act. Further, assessee also filed revised return of we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g our attention to the facts brought out by the AO in Para 8.3 of the assessment order, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that this is a case where assessee originally filed the return declaring the said land (Gut No.104/2) in question as taxable net wealth. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed revised computation of wealth excluding the said agricultural land as an eligible deduction. In the assessment order, the AO held that the said land was barren land and the same was never used for agricultural purposes. He fairly submitted that the said land is classified as an Agricultural land in the records of the Government. Ignoring the above facts relating to non-use of land for Agricultural purposes, the CWT(A) deleted the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gricultural purposes". The said decision was delivered in the context of 'construction of a building on the land'. Ld. DR submitted that in fairness this issue can revisit to the file of CWT(A) for deciding the issue fresh keeping the above observation of the Ld. DR for the Revenue. 8. We heard the Ld. DR for the Revenue on issue limited issue and perused the material available on record. Regarding reliance by the CWT(A) on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. E. Udayakumar (supra), on facts, we find the said decision was rendered in the context of 'construction of a building on the land'. 9. Coming to facts of this case, we find there was no building constructed by the assessee on a piece of land. However, con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation in the Official Gazette. [but does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building] is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him [ or any land held by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of [ten] years from the date of its acquisition by him.] 10. The Wealth Tax Act, 1957 defines the "assets" in clauses (e) and (ea) of....