TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the amended provisions of the Act arises for consideration in the present appeal. It is a well-settled principle of law that a question which has either been answered by the judgment of the court or on a plain reading of the provisions of the relevant section, the interpretation is so clear as not to invite any legal controversy. There the question of law would not arise as contemplated under section 27A of the Act. The provisions of section 27A of the Act are pari materia to section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The court should be satisfied that the case in appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of this court, after applying the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in different cases held that in both the abovesaid circumstances, the case would not involve substantial question of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. S. R. Fragnances Ltd. [2004] 270 ITR 560. Thus, now we have to consider whether the controversy involved in the present case and particularly as formulated by the Department in the proposed question of law is answered by judgment or on the plain reading of the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile not allowing exemption to the assessee-company, the amendment by the Finance Act, 1992, in the Wealth-tax Act was also discussed on page 2 of the assessment order. It has been discussed that clause (ea) to section 2 was inserted to the Wealth-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1993 and the inserted provision provided for exemption of any unused land held by the assessee-company for industrial purposes for a period of 2 years from the date of its acquisition by it. As discussed further in the assessment order the assessee converted it land into stock-in-trade in September 1, 1992, which corresponds to the assessment year 1993-94. It is obvious that the assessee should not have claimed the exemption because in the assessment year 1993-94 no exemption is available. The exemption in such cases is available from the assessment year 1994-95 and not in 1993-94. From the above, it becomes clear that the authorized representative is admitting that it is only on the basis of the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1993, applicable from the assessment year 1994-95, that exemption is being claimed by the appellant. In spite of it being clearly and unambiguously mentioned that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions of learned counsel for the assessee that said premises cannot be said to be urban land for the purpose of section 2(ea) of Wealth-tax Act. On the basis of the above factual position itself, the claim of the company deserves to succeed. We find from the orders of the lower authorities that the factual position as submitted by the assessee-company has not been considered and appreciated by them. The Assessing Officer, in fact did not even consider it necessary to give any weightage to the factual position and he just concluded that whatever arguments have been put forth it is urban land taxed under the Wealth-tax Act. Further, he has said that under no circumstances the urban land is exempt. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) though considered and recorded factual position in his order, he disregarded the same by taking into account a hypothetical situation for each claim. The Supreme Court though had permitted redevelopment of area in principle but the case of the assessee-company for granting approval, etc. was to be considered by the MCD, DBA, etc. with reference to the relevant regulations and bye-laws. It cannot be said that the approval of maps, etc. was only a ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the valuation date; or (ii) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometers from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette, but does not include land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of three years from the date of its acquisition by him ;" The provisions underlined, by us in the above provision were inserted by the Finance Act, 1993 and made effective from April 1, 1994. We are dealing with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
