TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-13 23,58,951 2013-14 24,85,772 03. For ay 2013-14, return was filed admitting a Net Weal th of Rs . 24,85,772/ - . The AO selec ted al l these cases for scrutiny u/s 16(2) and after taking into account the submissions made by the assessee, the net taxable wealth for each of the a y was determined as under, after disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Ac t by the as ses see in respec t of land at T. Dasarahalli which was treated as urban land by the A O . Assessment Year Net Wealth (in Rs) 2009-10 Rs. 8,43,85,550 2010-11 Rs. 8,84,31,336 2011-12 Rs. 10,33,94,749 2012-13 Rs. 10,46,58,951 2013-14 Rs.10,47,85,772 04. The assessee filed appeals before the CWT (A) against the assessment orders of all these five years. The CWT (A) consolidated all of them and by a common order in WTA No 760 -764/ CWT(A) -2/14-15 dt 23.03.2016 dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved, the assessee filed these appeals . Since the appeal grounds are common, the grounds related to ay 2009-10 alone is extracted as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CWT (A) without appreciating the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land as on the date of valuation was significant for the purpose of considering the land as agricultural land for the purpose of the Act. 9. The learned CWT(A) grossly erred in relying on the lease agreement entered into between Sri A.R.Narendranath (HUF) and M/s.Dashari Builders which was in respect of part of piece of land in Sy.No.1 1/3 and of land in Sy.No.14/1 and thus the CWT(A) ought to have appreciated that the. said lease agreement was not entered into by the Appellant with MIs.Dashari Builders. 10. The learned CWT(A), without prejudice, ought to have accepted the explanation of the appellant and reduce the value of the land as determined by the DVO. 11. The learned CWT(A) ought to have appreciated that the DVO failed to consider the objections of the appellant while determining the value of the land and accordingly the value as determined by the OVO was unsustainable and accordingly was not ineludible while computing the net wealth of the appellant. 12. Without prejudice, the value determined is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 13. The learned CWT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest uls.17B of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plots It is also seen that subsequently, this plot is given on a Joint Development Agreement, whereby hundreds of flats are being built in the same plots since 2010 Considering the totality of reasons the claim of agricultural land is held incorrect and unsubstantiated. The value of plots of land is estimated as below Location Area in Sft. Value/Sft Total Value Survey No 11/3,T. Approximately Dasarahatli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli 5 acres 2,17,800 Sft. Government guidance value of Rs. 2,000 per sft Total value Rs. 43,56,00,000 It is seen as above that taxable wealth of Rs. 43,56,00,000 have escaped assessment on account of wrong claims made by the assessee. This taxable wealth escaped needs to be brought to taxation. On account of facts and circumstances as above I have reasons to believe that the taxable weal th has escaped assessment. Issue notice u/s 17(1) to initiate assessment proceedings. Similar reasons have been recorded for each of the assessment years in question. However, the appellant having raised this issue in appeal, copy of the same was provided to the appellant's counsel on 04/02/106 and on the said date, assessment records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to nonagricultural land on 06-10-2008, hence as per the amended provisions of the Act (amended w.e.f. 01/04/1993), the impugned land could be considered as an agricultural land only if it was classified as an agricultural land in the Government record and also used for agricultural purpose. Since the land had already been converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land by the Government Authority on 06.10.2008, the AO held that it did not qualify to be an agricultural land eligible for exemption under, the Act, proceeded to value the asset as on 31.03.2009 by the Distr ict Valuation Officer (DVO) and after taking into account the objections raised by the assessee in respect of the valuation made by the DVO, the AO valued the said asset as under for each of the assessment years :- Assessment Year Valuation of converted land in question, as per DVO (in Rs) Net value (in Rs) of assets as on valuation date, i.e. 28-11-2014 2009-10 8,43,75,000 8,53,71,000 2010-11 8,95,50,000 9,07,12,000 2011-12 10,44,45,000 10,57,73,000 2012-13 10,53,00,000 10,67,94,000 2013-14 10,53,00,000 10,69,60,000 07. On the assessee's ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions as under: (ea) "assets", in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, means-- (i) .............................................; (2)............................................; (3) ......................................; (4).............................. ; (5) ..............................................; (iv).......................................; (v) urban land; (vi) .................................... Explanation 1-,-- (a) ........................._ (i) ..............................; (ii) .............................. ; (b) "urban land" means land situate_ (i) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the valuation date; or (ii) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l lage, Yeshwanthpur Hobl i , Bangalore North Taluk, Ba n gal o re District ,for Non-Ag ricultural Industrial Purpose. Ref: 1) Government letter No. RD.7:LGP/95 dated 7/6/1999 2) Government Circular No.RD.56:LGP/2008 dated 10/9/2008 and 24/9/2008. 3) Letter No,ALN. :S.R.(N)44/06-07 dated 26/10/2006, of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. 4) Land conversion fee of Rs,3,39,768/- and Phodi fee of Rs. 55/- totally Rs. 3,39,823/- paid to S.B.M. vide DD/Challan No.52 dated 26/11/2006. ******** OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM Since the Appl icant Sri A.R. Narendranath, has paid the amount as stated under Reference (4) above at the rate of R s . 1,74,240/- ( Rupees One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) in accordance with Conditions under Section 95(2), 95(4) and 95(7) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 and the following Conditions, Rule 107(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1994, the Application of the said Applicant Sri A.R. Narendranath has been considered and this order of conversion is issued for ut i l i zat ion of land measur ing 1-38 Ac re/Gunta in Sy. No. 14/1 of Peenya Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Banga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional and State Highways and margin land of 25 meters from the middle of the road in respect of District highways shall be reserved and no building shall be constructed in this vacant land. (9) The converted land should be used for the purpose for which conversion order is granted within 2 years from this date. (10) To implement effective measures to successfully prevent the fumes, gas etc. coming out of the Industrial units that may be established in the converted land, so that no harm shall be caused to the public health and environmental pollution is prevented. The Industrial Units established in the lands converted for Industrial purpose, shall have obtained permission from the Karnataka Pollution Control Board and Department of Environment. (11) This order is subject to the Judgement of that may be passed in any pending Suit/Writ Petition/Appeal before any Court relating to this land, (12) If the land in question is included under any land acquisition proceedings this Authority is not responsible for the same. (13) In case of violation of the any of the conditions, this land conversion order will be cancelled without giving any notice and action will be taken to....