TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n earlier years. In view of this, we do not find any justification in invoking the provisions of Section 25(2) and setting aside the orders of AO. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the orders of AO are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the orders of Pr. CWT u/s. 25(2) in these appeals are set aside and the orders of AO are restored - Decided in favour of assessee - WTA No. 09/Hyd/2015, 11/Hyd/2015, 12/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President And Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member For the Appellants : Shri C. P. Ramaswamy For the Respondent : Shri M. Sitaram DR ORDER Per D. Manmohan, Vice President These three appeals are field at the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessees, vide his appellate orders dated 25.2.2015. 4. In the meantime Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Wealth Tax on examination of the record noticed that assessees owned three more properties with adjacent survey numbers in the same village of Gundla Pochampally village. Part of the properties in the same village which are under agreement of sale were re-valued by Assessing Officer at ₹ 9,38,355/- per gunta in the wealth tax orders passed from Assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-10. For this, Assessing Officer obtained the valuation of land from Sub-Registry Office which showed that the land-in-question was valued at ₹ 25 Lakhs per acre. He increased the valuation by his own reasons given in the orders at ₹ 7,775 per sq. yd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessees preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. 6. Having considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we find that in the cases of both these assessees, the additions made in the assessments made under S.16(3) read with S.17 for the years under consideration vide orders dated 31.3.2013, were subject matter of appeal before the CWT(A), who disposed of those appeals by his orders dated 25.2.2015. As against this background, the impugned revisionary orders under S.25(2) have been passed by the Pr. Commissioner by her orders dated 31.3.2105, i.e. after the passing of the appellate orders in the quantum proceedings by the Commissioner(Appeals). Under similar circumstances, similar revisionary orders d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y determining per gunta value ₹ 9,38,355/-. This is the rate in the order for AY. 2007-08 that Ld. CWT has taken for revising the order in this year. In fact, that valuation in AY. 2007-08 was also not upheld by Ld. CIT(A), but determined the valuation at 517 per sq. yd. As seen from the appeals in those years Revenue has not contested this issue in the orders of Ld. CIT(A) in their appeals and therefore, considering valuation at ₹ 9,38,355/- per gunta itself is erroneous on the part of Ld. Pr. CWT in these orders. The impugned lands are also being agricultural lands, they have been excluded from the wealth tax by the Ld. CIT(A) in earlier years. In view of this, we do not find any justification in invoking the provisions of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
