TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The aforesaid assessees filed returns of net wealth for assessment year 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. It was noticed by the Wealth Tax Officer ('WTO' or 'AO') 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 the case of all the Assessees for the AYs mentioned above. In response thereto, 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 reopening 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. 2.2 In their submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding that there is no wealth tax liability arising out of the Urban lands held by the assessee situated within 8 Kms. Of the municpal authority and the said lands having been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural lands. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances o the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of ITAT which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka?" 3.3 As already stated, the assesses have in the cross objections have challenged the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.17 of the Act. 4.1 The ld.DR for Revenue submitted, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases, along with other co-owners in common order in WTA No.86 to 97/Bang/2014 and C.O.Nos.16 to 29/Bang/2014 dated 31/03/2015, wherein the co-ordinate bench relied on the order of another co-ordinate bench in the case of one of the co-owners Shri M.R.Seetharam in ITA No.1654/Bang/2012 in which the Tribunal held at paras 8 to 9.1 thereof that BIAPPA does not qualify to be local authority and therefore, the said lands are agricultural lands and not urban land or capital assets as canvassed by Revenue. Consequently, ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 5.3 As regards the measurement of distance, the case of the revenue is that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be accepted. 5.5 We also note on a perusal of the orders of assessment that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed a letter from the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat office confirming that the land does not come within the limits of any Corporation or Municipality and confirmation from the office of the Tahsildar, Devarahalli measuring the distance from BBMP limits. Per contra, Revenue's case is that the said lands are situated within BIAPPA which has an authority as per the definition of 'asset' which proposition has been negative by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.R.Seetharam in ITA No.1654/Bang/2012(supra). In the case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh (229 CTR 82) it was held that the reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing the distance is of significance which would yield to the principle of measuring distance in terms of approach roads rather than by straight line or horizontal plane or as per crows flight'. Thus, it is clear to us that for the period under consideration, in the appeals before us i.e. assessment year 2007-08 & 2009-10 the distance has to be calculated by road and not as the crow flies or by straight lin....