Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + HC Wealth-tax - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1437 - HC - Wealth-taxAssessments made on urban land owned by the assessee as covered by the definition clause Section 2(ea) Explanation I (b) - value of urban land taken as on the valuation date - Held that:- With respect to the Chandigarh property, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the first appellate order. We also find no reason to interfere with the order insofar as the Chandigarh property since, it is on facts and based on the evidence produced by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. With respect to the urban land other than the land in Chandigarh as we noticed when we discussed the First Appellate Authority's order, it is specifically noticed that no evidence was produced with respect to the other lands;as to whether they are beyond the limit as prescribed in Explanation I or are occupied with buildings. No approval for such construction or licences for carrying on business of freezing units were produced by the assessee. In such circumstance, the Tribunal went wrong in finding that there was lack of clarity in the order of the lower authorities. In fact, the lower authorities did not say anything about the lands being occupied by buildings because the assessee did not produce any evidence to show that. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse. The Tribunal ought not to have shifted the burden of proving that the lands were occupied with buildings, on to the shoulders of the Revenue. We see that there is no appearance before this Court and there is no production of any evidence with respect to lands, the value of which was added on, being occupied with buildings. We hence answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|