TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 the purpose of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) is erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating 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 17(1) was issued after determination of net wealth under section 16(1) or 16(3) or 16(5) or section 17 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the land at Egattur held by the assessee is agricultural without applying the ratio of the Tribunal in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Shri. S.A. Mafaz Mohammed and uphold the view that the land sold by the assessees, in so far assessment year 2010-2011 is concerned was agricultural and not a capital asset coming within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording 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 matter in I.T.A. No. 2337/Chny/2016 & ors dated 18.01.2019 as well as amendment to sub-clause (b) of Explanation 1 to clause (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, we are inclined to uphold the view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, 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 pleaded for reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6.2 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that from the assessment year 2010-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made to wealth in the assessment year 2010-11. 6.6 Another case law relied on by the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (supra) has no application to the fact of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 section 15; (iii ) Return is furnished after the due date in response to notice under section 16(4)(i); (iv) Where no return is filed before completion of assessment Section 14(1) deals with voluntary filing of the return on the part of the assessee, f....