1992 (7) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on was non-agricultural land ? " In order to answer the said question, it would be necessary for us to set out the relevant facts herein : (i) The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment and included in the wealth of the assessee the value of two parcels of land bearing S. Nos. 51/1/11 and 51/1/2/2/2. The contention of the assessee that the said parcels of land were agricultural lands and were, therefore, not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee was negatived by the Wealth-tax Officer on his finding that the said parcels of land were non-agricultural lands. (ii) The assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the Division Bench was of the view that various relevant factors which were required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the nature of the land were, in fact, not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench found that, on the facts and in the light of the situation prevailing before it, two courses were open to it, i.e., (i) to call for a supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal or (ii) to decline to answer the question raised by the Tribunal and to leave the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to adjust its decision under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench, therefore, in the aforesaid case passed the fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal for decision under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the decision on which the judgment of the Tribunal is based in the case before us, i.e., the decision dated January 24, 1977, cannot stand and we shall have to the issue same directions which were issued by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Chandravati Atmaram Patel [1978] 114 ITR 302 (Guj). We, accordingly, decline to answer the question on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider and decide the question whether the land was agricultural land from the correct angle, i.e., it has not considered the question whether the land in question was agricultural land or not from the proper perspective and from the proper angle and has not appl....