TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, alone are applicable for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and subsequent completion of the assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer is barred by limitation of time ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material or information for the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening the assessment under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and in cancelling the assessment as not valid in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the lands belonging to the assessee and situated in T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee showing extensive lands of 89 acres in Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras, but claiming them as agricultural lands. This claim that the lands were agricultural was accepted by the wealth-tax authorities in all the three years. The assessee has also been showing the income from these lands as agricultural income in his income-tax returns and claiming exemption in relation thereto. Since his claim that the lands in Taylors Road are agricultural lands had been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer in the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65, the assessee did not disclose these lands in the returns filed under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. Original assessments were made for all the said assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal assessment. He also held on merits that the lands in Taylors Road continued to be agricultural lands during the assessment year 1968-69 and, therefore, the reassessment for the said year could not be sustained on merits. The said view of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) has been accepted in toto by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before us Mr. J. Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that an asset may be an agricultural land in one year but it may be converted into or it may become a non-agricultural land in another year. In the present case, the fact that the claim of the assessee that the lands are agricultural lands had been accepted during the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65 cannot lead to the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Parts I, II and III but which the assessee claims to be not taxable for any reason. Thus, the inclusion in the return of exempted items such as agricultural lands, was only optional. It is open to the assessee to include the agricultural lands in the return and claim that they are exempted under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. Once an option is given to the assessee either to show the agricultural lands in the return and claim exemption or not to do so, it cannot be said that he is under an obligation to show the agricultural lands as an asset in the return filed under the Wealth-tax Act. When the assessee is not under an obligation to disclose the asset in his wealth-tax return, we do not see how the assessee could be guilty of non-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tural lands became non-agricultural lands during those years. In this view of the matter, we do not see any justification for directing a reference in relation to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. However, since the reopening of the assessment for the year 1968-69 is not time-barred even treating the reassessment as one having been made under section 17(1)(b), the questions as to whether there was any material or information before the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening the assessment and whether the lands which were originally held to be agricultural by the Wealth-tax Officer in the earlier years became non-agricultural lands in the assessment year 1968-69, do arise. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, contends that the ....