TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....giving a finding that these assets were not includable in the net wealth of the assessee? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the value adopted by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax of Rs. 62,10,000/- in respect of the land situated at Jaunapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi and the value of Rs. 66,35,500/- in respect of the land situation at Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi?" IN WTA 6/2008 "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) "erred in giving a finding that these assets were not includable in the net wealth of the assessee? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AYs 1993-94 and 1994-95, included the value of two immovable properties which belonged to the appellants - one located at Jaunapur, Tehsil Mehrauli and the other at Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli [hereafter referred to variously as "the two assets/the two immovable properties"]. 3. The appellants/assessees were aggrieved and appealed to the CWT. The CWT by order dated 12.11.1997 rejected the assessees' contentions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) accepted the assessees' plea with respect to the tentative nature of the valuation applied, on the basis of the DVO's report. The ITAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the issue of valuation of the two assets. The CWT accepted the assessees' plea with respect to valuation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T in this regard is as follows: "(iii) The AO has ignored the provisions of law pertaining to the Assessability of the Agricultural Lands at Satbari and Jaunapur which according to provisions of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act are not taxable as these come under the exception clause of Section 2(ea) which reads as under: Section 2(ea) Explanation (1) (b) „Urban Land‟ means land situate- (i)....... (ii)............. but does not include" 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." 5. CWT recorded the findings on this aspect -it was urged for the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....primary liability under the Wealth Tax Act on the ground that the lands were in any manner excluded, no findings were called for. 9. The only question it urged before the ITAT in the earlier round which led to the order of 07.01.2002 was that the valuation adopted by the AO was incorrect. In these circumstances, the question of reopening the entire matter as it were, to re-examine whether the lands could be subjected to Wealth Tax did not arise. Learned counsel highlighted that the scope of remand to inferior authority or Court is limited or circumscribed by the issues which the superior Court requires a finding on. 10. In the present case, the only issue was with respect to valuation. It was urged that in fact the asses....