2022 (8) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed u/s.16(3) r.w.s. 17 on 18.12.2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 by WTO, Ward - 5(2)(2), Ahmedabad making addition aggregating to Rs.2,12,98,200/- treating lands at Vastrapur and Rancharda as urban lands is passed without observing the principles of natural justice and therefore, is wholly illegal, unlawful and invalid. 1.2 The Ld. AO has grievously erred in passing the order without considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and evidences produced by the appellant. 1.3 The Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition without passing a speaking and reasoned order. The appellant should therefore be allowed to produce additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings and should be admitted. 2. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eable to Wealth Tax. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had understated the wealth by treating the land at Vastrapur and Rancharda as non-urban land. The notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act was issued on 28.10.2013. The assessment was reopened after recording reasons as per the observations of the Assessing Officer. The assessee could not submit his objection to the validity of reopening as reasons recorded for reopening were not furnished to the assessee as per the contentions of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that both the said lands were non-urban land and as such exempt under Section 2(ea)(v) of Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer concluded that the said lands ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the said land and the details given by the assessee before us were only related to Talati Certificate which is undated. The other documents which were before us and before the CIT(A), as contended by the assessee, are not showing that the said land were not coming under the urban land definition. Ld. AR further contended that the reasons were not supplied to the assessee by reopening the case but since the very basis of reopening was related to the urban land, the assessee was very much aware about the reasons upon which the reopening was made by the Revenue Authorities. Thus, the reopening is valid which is also reiterated by the CIT(A) in par....