TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icultural land and hence will not constitute 'Capital Asset' within the meaning of Sec. 2(14) of the Act. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (a) The case of Smt. Sarifabibi (204 ITR 631-SC) wherein the Apex Court observed that just because that the land being mentioned as Agricultural land in the Revenue Records it is not conclusive evidence to prove its character since the property was situated in a place where there are colleges, shopping malls, housing projects, tech parks, information technology companies and restaurants. (b) The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Giridhar Yedalam V CWT (384 ITR 52-SC) wherein it was held that when the property is given for development, unless the building is completed, it will not be construed as 'building' and hence liable for wealth tax as urban land. (c) The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G M Omer Khan (196 ITR 269) wherein it was held that the population of the entire Municipality has to be considered and not that of a particular area/village (population below 10000) for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contract which can be enforced in law under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. 3.4 Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that no contract can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose of specified section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, after amendment of Registration Act in 2001 unless the said contract is registered as per law. 3.5 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to take note of the fact that as per para 7.3 of JDA, the Developer upon only as a exclusive licensee of owners of land, to carry out construction, not as a transferee. 3.6 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that in JDA dt. 25.06.2007, a special provision was made in Para 7.3, which clearly states that the Developer could not make any possessory right over the property which constitutes transfer as per Income Tax Act. With this special provision of JDA, the intension of both the parties was clear that none of them were willing to transfer the property through this JDA. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest u/s 17B as per sub-sec (3) of Sec. 17B of the Act, since the above sec. is applicable only in cases where notice u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the written submissions filed by the assessee vide his reply dated 05.12.2016, the Assessing Officer has observed that the property owned by the assessee i.e. 1/3rd share on 9.32-1.85 = 7.47 acres of land as on 31.03.2010 is liable for wealth tax. Since the assessee has not offered the same for wealth in the return of wealth, the said property is treated as wealth as on 31.03.2010 and bought to tax. During the financial year 2009-10, the assessee along with others sold a part of the property of 1.85 acres for Rs..37.50 crores. Taking the said value into consideration, the Assessing Officer has determined the value of the unsold property of 7.47 acres (9.32-1.85) as on 31.03.2010 at Rs..50,47,29,730/- (Rs..37,50,00,000 x 7.47/1.85x3) and the same has been treated as wealth escaped assessment and added to the net wealth admitted in the return. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2.1 Similarly property at Velachery was treated as vacant urban plot liable to wealth tax and accordingly assessed the wealth at Rs..52,91,21,760/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment, assessee had satisfied atleast four. Just because assessee received an amount higher than the guideline value would not show that the land was non agricultural. Agricultural land cannot become non agricultural only for a reason that were development of a commercial nature in the nearby areas. As already noted by us, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Ayisha Fathima (supra) had held that a piece of land in the immediate neighbourhood in very same village was agricultural. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker and Others vs. ITO, (2007) 292 ITR 481 has clearly held that development in nearby areas was not relevant. Coming to the decisions in the case of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Aboobucker (supra), Vijay Shah (supra) and that of Cochin Bench in the case of Abdul Rahmin (supra) in our opinion these decisions pale into insignificance, considering the subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mansi Finance Limited (supra) which followed the earlier judgments of the very same court. In the circumstances, we are inclined to follow the decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax. This inter alia included land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a cantonment board and which has population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census; or land situated in any area within such distance not being more than eight kilometers from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board as the Central government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanization of that area and other relevant considerations specify in this behalf by notification in the official gazette. Subsequently, by Finance Act 2013 the said sub clause (b) of Explanation 1 to clause (ea) was amended to provide that the term "urban land" would not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, such land stands exempt from wealth-tax. This amendment was done with retrospective effect from 1.4.1993." Thus, the case law relied on by the ld. DR by raising a specific ground No. 2.2 has no application to the facts of the present case. 5.4 Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in income tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying on decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Giridhar Yedalam v. CWT & Another 384 ITR 52 (SC), the Assessing Officer has held that the property under construction is liable for wealth tax and therefore, an amount of Rs..2,39,31,130/- which was not offered for wealth tax has been treated as wealth escaped assessment and accordingly brought to tax. On appeal, by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar Yedalam v. CWT & Another (supra), the ld. CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 6.1 Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balbir Singh Maini (in Civil Appeal No. 15619 of 2017) for the preposition that no contract can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose of specified section 53A of Transfer of Property Act ["TOPA" in short], after amendment of Registration Act in 2001 unless the said contract is registered as per law, the ld. DR has submitted that in view of the invalid JDA, the entire transaction in hand envisage a transfer exigible to wealth tax as per section 53A of TOPA and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uilding where it is still under construction. The purposive interpretation has to be rejected because : in a taxing statute, it is the plain language of the provision that has to be preferred where the language is plain and is capable of one definite meaning, strict interpretation to the exemption provision is to be accorded, and the purposive interpretation can be given only when there is some ambiguity in the language of the statutory provision or it leads to absurd results. Although the purpose and objective of introducing the provision was to stimulate productive assets the Legislature in its wisdom conferred the benefit of exemption in respect of urban vacant land only when the building is fully constructed and not when the construction activity has merely started." 6.5 By respectfully relying on the above judgement, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the land at Velachery cannot be construed as an "Urban land" under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act for the reason that after obtaining proper planning permission, the building was constructed and the assessee has sold the built-up area from the assessment year 2010-11 to 2014-15. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... From the provision of section 17B it is clear that interest under section 17B is attracted in a case where the return of net wealth was furnished after the due date or where no such return was filed before the completion of the assessment. In the present case, the assessees did file the return of net wealth on 15-2-1994 as against the due date of 30.6.1991. Thus, apparently, there was a delay in filing the returns. The argument of the assessee that since the returns had been considered non-est in law, they did not come within the purview of section 17B(1), did not hold water. Sub-section (3) of section 17B is attracted only in a case where assessment has been done originally and return is filed subsequently in pursuance of notice under section l7. No doubt sub-section (3) did not apply to the facts of the case as in the present cases assessments had been done for the first time and, therefore, it had to be seen whether sub-section (1) of section 17B which envisages the following situations was applicable to the present situations: (i ) Return is furnished after the due date under sub-section (1) of section 14; (ii ) Return is furnished after the due date under s....