Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + AT Wealth-tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1025 - AT - Wealth-taxValidity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.17 - AO was correct in treating the said lands as ‘urban land’ and consequently the said lands are liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee and be exigible to wealth-tax - ‘urban lands’ or ‘agricultural lands’ - Held that:- On the issue that since said land is situated in BIAPPA which is an ‘authority’, the said land is urban land and therefore, a capital asset exigible to wealth-tax, we find that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee. BIAPPA does not qualify to be local authority and therefore, the said lands are agricultural lands and not urban land or capital assets as canvassed by Revenue. Consequently, ground No.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing the distance is of significance which would yield to the principle of measuring distance in terms of approach roads rather than by straight line or horizontal plane or as per crows flight’. Thus, it is clear to us that for the period under consideration, in the appeals before us i.e. assessment year 2007-08 & 2009-10 the distance has to be calculated by road and not as the crow flies or by straight line. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue. As regards conversion of land from Agricultural use to non agricultural use, the Tribunal in Assessees own case dealt with this issue in paragraph 7.3 to 7.3.10 and held that though the subject land was converted into non-agricultural purposes, cultivation of the land for agricultural purposes till the date of sale continued unabated and as such, the land should be treated as agricultural land. These findings will equally apply for the AYs in these appeals as the character of the land in question remained the same in these AYs also. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 and of another co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri M.R.Seetharam in we hold that the said lands in question are not ‘urban lands’ but ‘agricultural lands’ and hence not exigible to wealth-tax. Consequently, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed.
|