9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessees have raised common grounds in all the appeals. However, the common grounds of appeal raised in WTA No.12 are reproduced as under: "1. That the order of the Ld. CWT(Appeals), Jalandhar is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CWT(Appeals) had gravely erred in law in failing to appreciate that 'agricultural lands', whether situated within the 'Urban agglomeration' or within the notified area limits would not falll within the 'Scope & Domain' of the terminology 'Asset" as contemplated u/s 2(ea)(v) of the W.T.Act, 1957. 3. That th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down by the Hon'ble Supreme Curt, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Entry 86 & Entry 97 as is so contemplated in the Union List of the 'Constitution of India' and the Circular of the CBDT substantiating the assessee's contention. 5. That the CWT(Appeals) gravely erred in law that vide the Finance Act, 1992, the then Finance Minister had specifically brought only non-productive assets within the ambit of Wealth-tax Act,1957 and by no stretch of imagination agricultural land i.e. land on in which agricultural operations are being carried on, whether situated within or outside the urban areas could be held in our Indian economy as a 'non-productive assts'. 6. That without prejudice to the aforesaid settled position of law, the ld. CWT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, dated 16.12.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Gurdip Singh Nagra vs. CWT and Others', in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 30267/2011 (from the judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 in WTA No.38/2010 of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court). Now, the same have been recalled by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order, dated 20.05.2016 for fresh adjudication, in view of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, in section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993. 4. The facts of the case are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that post the passing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
