2019 (10) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are identical, both the appeals were clubbed and heard together and, therefore, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts as taken from WTA No. 70/Hyd/2016 are, A.O obtained information from Jubilee Hills Cooperative Housing Society, that the assessee is having a plot of land situated at plot No. 473-K in road No. 87, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 876 sq.yds. Since the piece of land forms part of Urban land as per the provisions of section 2(da) of the Wealth Tax Act, accordingly, the ITO issued a notice u/s 16(4)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act to the assessee on 16/01/2008. As there was no response from the assessee, the AO obtained information from Joint Sub-Registrar - I, Hyderabad (South), as per which, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the determination of the market value of the land at Road No.87, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad at Rs. 3,06,60,000/- particularly when lot of litigation was involved in the property. 3. The learned Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the explanation submitted by the appellant and ought to have held that the market value cannot be assessed at Rs. 3,06,60,000/- 4. The learned Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that there is litigation in the property and, therefore, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e advise of co-operative society, on 21/03/2007 took steps to construct compound wall after 21.03.2007. When the compound wall construction had started, there is no reference in facts mentioned in the case (refer page 18). However, it is mentioned that even on 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007, the construction work was disturbed by the defendants. Thereafter, the case was filed in F.Y 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008-09. But, before us, the AY pending for adjudication is A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08. The dispute on title was started only in A.Y 2008-09. Therefore, it has no bearing on pending assessment years. Now the dispute is very much settled and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of assessee is rejected. 9. However, even though assessee h....