TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s noticed that the assessees, who were owners of lands at Akkelenahalli -Mallenahalli village, had not included the value of this land in their returns of net wealth. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings and issued notice u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act,1957 (in short 'the Act') for re-opening the assessments in both these cases. In response thereto, both the assessees requested the AO to treat the original returns of net wealth as filed in compliance to the notice u/s 17 of the Act. The assessees also requested the AO to provide them with copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening their cases and the same were provided to them by the AO. The assessees filed their objections in respect of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 17 of the Act and the AO disposed off the same by way of passing a speaking order thereon. 2.2 In their submissions, the assessees had stated that the said lands situated at Akkelenahalli-Mallenahalli villages does not come under the ambit of the definition of wealth as per Explanation 1(b) to section 2(ea) of the Act which defines 'urban land', as it is situated 11 KMs away from BBMP limits. The assessees also place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is justified in treating BIAPA as a non-Municipal authority. 4. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A), insofar as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3.3 The assessee has also raised the following almost identical grounds in its cross objections in both cases, except for figures mentioned therein and we therefore extract hereunder the grounds of appeal raised in the case of M.R.Padmavathy Trust:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax [Appeals], insofar as it is against the Respondent/Cross Objector is opposed to law, facts, equity, weight of evidence, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax [Appeals] insofar as regard to the relief granted to the Respondent/Cross-objector, is just and proper and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, with respect to the ground raised at Sl.No.2 (supra), that the calculation of the distance of 8 KMs from BBMP limits has to be the distance measured as the crow flies, i.e. that the aerial distance has to be calculated and not the distance as per road. In support of this proposition, the ld.DR cited the substituted provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Act by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014. It was contended that the aforesaid substitution of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is clarificatory in nature and if the said lands are aerially measured, then the same would come within the BBMP limits and consequently fall within the meaning of 'urban land' as per Explanation 1(b) to section 2(ea) of the Act. It is submitted that in view of the above, the AO was correct in treating the said lands as 'urban land' and consequently the said lands are liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessees and be exigible to wealth-tax. 6.2.1 The ld.AR for the assessee placed on record of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the cases, inter alia, both these assessees before us in WTA Nos.16 to 29/Bang/2014 & CO Nos.86 to 97/Bang/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Revenue. Consequently, ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 6.4.1 As regards ground No.2 (supra), the ld. DR had submitted that the distance has to be considered as the crow flies i.e the distance has to be calculated aerially and not by road. In this context, the ld. DR relied on the provisions of clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as substituted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014; which he submitted were to be given retrospective operation as they are only clarificatory in nature. We have given careful consideration to the submissions put forth by the ld. DR and are of the considered view that it is not tenable for the following reasons - Firstly, the assessment year in the two appeals before us is assessment year 2007-08 and the law in operation at that point in time is to be considered, unless retrospective operation is specifically provided in the statute. In the cases on hand, for assessment year 2007-08, the said provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been substituted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 and therefore, are applicable only for and from assessm....