Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d not consider it enough fullfilment of the conditions of Rule 46A of the Inocme Tax Rules, 1962. Now, this being not correct, as the assessee squarely falls under Rule 46A(c) of the Rules, having been prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the WTO, evidence relevant to the additional plea raised before the CWT(A), the learned CWT(A) correctly took the additional evidence into consideration. So far as regards the merits of the issue, the very fact that the WTO left the issue open to be “treated accordingly” by the CWT(A), shows the direct applicability of the additional evidence to the issue and its unimpeachable value in support of the assessee’s claim of the land in question being classified as agricultural land in the Gov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the assessee. 4. The learned DR has contended that the learned CWT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made, without considering that as per section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act, urban land is taxable and the assessee was in possession of urban land which he sold during Assessment Year 2006-07; and that the learned CWT(A) failed to taking into consideration the fact that the documents submitted by the assessee do not specifically indicate that construction is not allowed over the land of the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the leanred counsel for the assessee has strongly relied on the impugend order, contending that the learned CWT(A) has correctly deleted the addition wrongly made by the WTO, by righlty taking into consideration th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deal with this aspect of the matter first. 8. In this regard it is seen that the orders of the WTO are dated 16.12.2011. The legislature amended section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2013, with retrospective effect from 1.04.1993. Prior to the said amendment, Explanation 1(b) defined urban land not to include four types of land, i.e., land on which construction of a building was not permissisble, or land having a building constructed with due approval, or unused land held for industrial purposes, as prescribed, or land held as stock-in-trade, as prescribed. The amendment made brought in another type of land to be exempt from urban land and thus, to be exempt from assets , as defined under section 2(ea)(v) of the W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itional evidence, the WTO stated that since the assessee did not fullfil any of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, this evidence be not admitted. With regard to the merits of the assessee s claim of his land being classified as agricultural land in the Govt. records and used for agricultural purposes, referring to the aforesaid additional evidence furnished by the assessee, the WTO merely stated; the issue may kindly be treated agricultural . 10. Therefore, though the amendment to Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act was brought in post the passing of the WTO s orders dated 16.12.2011 and the entitlment of the assessee to seek refuge thereunder arose to the assessee only by virtue of the passing of the Finance A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CWT(A) is either erroneous, or perverse. Therefore, once the land of the assessee stands classified in the Govt. records as agricultural land and once it is used for agricultural purposes, this land invariably falls within the amended definition of asset within the meaning of Section 2(ea), by way of Explanation 1(b) thereto. 13. Now, for completeness, we deem it appropriate to revert to the findings of the WTO, as recorded against the assessee for both the years. As per the WTO, the documents furnished by the assessee, i.e., a notification, SRO Recommendations of Committee for Lake Front Area, did not specifically indicate that construction was not allowed in the land of the assessee and that the land of the assessee lay within the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates