TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt should be satisfied that the case in appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of this court, after applying the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in different cases held that in both the abovesaid circumstances, the case would not involve substantial question of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. S. R. Fragnances Ltd. [2004] 270 ITR 560. Thus, now we have to consider whether the controversy involved in the present case and particularly as formulated by the Department in the proposed question of law is answered by judgment or on the plain reading of the provisions of the Act. Before discussing this aspect of the case in some elucidation, it would be necessary for us to refer to the facts giving rise to the present appeal. The assessee filed a return of wealth of Rs. 95,36,700 for the assessment year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 17 of the Act to the assessee on the ground that during the course of assessment for the assessment year 1994-95 it was noticed that assessee has not disclosed urban land worth crores of rupees held by the assessee as stock-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... converted it land into stock-in-trade in September 1, 1992, which corresponds to the assessment year 1993-94. It is obvious that the assessee should not have claimed the exemption because in the assessment year 1993-94 no exemption is available. The exemption in such cases is available from the assessment year 1994-95 and not in 1993-94. From the above, it becomes clear that the authorized representative is admitting that it is only on the basis of the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1993, applicable from the assessment year 1994-95, that exemption is being claimed by the appellant. In spite of it being clearly and unambiguously mentioned that the amendment on the strength of which the exemption is being claimed by the appellant would be applicable only with effect from April 1, 1994, the authorised representative is trying to claim the exemption in the year under consideration which is against the clear unambiguous provisions of Wealth-tax Act. Had the amendment been applicable to the assessment year under consideration, certainly the same would have mentioned in the amendment. In view of the specific mention of the date of April 1, 1994, mentioned in the amendment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t concluded that whatever arguments have been put forth it is urban land taxed under the Wealth-tax Act. Further, he has said that under no circumstances the urban land is exempt. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) though considered and recorded factual position in his order, he disregarded the same by taking into account a hypothetical situation for each claim. The Supreme Court though had permitted redevelopment of area in principle but the case of the assessee-company for granting approval, etc. was to be considered by the MCD, DBA, etc. with reference to the relevant regulations and bye-laws. It cannot be said that the approval of maps, etc. was only a routine matter. 10. We accordingly uphold the claim of the assessee-company. Firstly, on the ground that the premises under reference cannot be said to be land and, therefore, were not in the nature of 'urban land' chargeable to wealth-tax..." As is clear from the above two orders, different reasons have been given by the authorities for accepting and/or rejecting the case of the assessee. Basically, two grounds-appeared to have influenced the authorities in coming to their respective conclusions. Firstly, that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 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 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 three years from the date of its acquisition by him ;" The provisions underlined, by us in the above provision were inserted by the Finance Act, 1993 and made effective from April 1, 1994. We are dealing with the relevant assessment year for 1993-94. On the bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that urban land would not include a land, on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area where land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or in any unused land held by the assessee for an industrial purpose for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition. It is an....