TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablishes that the impugned land was 594.77 sq.yards which is equivalent to 497.30 sq.meters. In the immediately preceding assessment year, the AO did not make any addition with regard to the value of the property at Yousufguda. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CWT(A) and the same is upheld. This issue is involved for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for both the assessment years. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. - W.T.A.Nos.04/VIZ/2016, 30&31/VIZ/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR For the Respondent : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, the AO held the land is urban land and not exempt u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act and accordingly collected the market value of the property from SRO and assessed the value at ₹ 1,01,50,000/- for wealth tax purpose. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CWT(A) and the Ld.CWT(A) examined the records, relevant details and held that the impugned property was agricultural land and exempt from Wealth Tax. For ready reference, we extract the relevant part of the Ld.CWT(A) order in para No. 6.1 and 6.1.2 which reads as under : 6.1. The first and second grounds of appeal pertain to bringing to tax the value of agricultural lands at Enikepadu and Nidamanuru. The appellant claimed Ac.1.00 cents of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act. The revenue s case is that both the lands are urban lands, hence not exempt u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act. The revenue has argued that the amendment is introduced w.e.f. 2013, therefore the CWT(A) has misinterpreted the Clause (1)(b) of Explanation (1) to Section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act, hence argued that the land in question is subject to wealth tax. There is no dispute with regard to the nature of the land. The land is agricultural land, the same is being supported by the pass books submitted by the assessee, wherein, it was classified as dry agricultural lands. On agricultural land, no construction is permissible as per existing laws unless the agricultural land is converted into non agricultural lands. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotted 600 sq.yards of site which works out to 502 sq.meters and as per proviso to section 5(vi) of Wealth Tax Act, only 500 sq.meters is entitled for exemption u/s 5(vi), hence the assessee is not entitled for exemption as per proviso to section 5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee s case is that as per the sale deed document, the impugned property of 600 sq.yards works out to 500 sq.meters but not 502 sq.meters. The surveyor s report also establish that the plot area was 594.77sq.yards or 497.36 sq.meters. For ready reference, we extract the relevant part of the order of the Ld.CWT(A) which reads as under : 6.2. The third ground of appeal relates to assessing the property (vacant land) at MLA quarters, Yousufguda to Wealth Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) Perusal of details of schedule of property in copy of sale deed document 3712/1994 dated 27.04.1994 indicates that Plot No.13 admeasured 600 sq.yards (500 sq.meters) in survey No.125 126 of Yousufguda village in Golconda MandaL As the same document contained area of plot no.13 in two units (sq. yards I sq. meters), the one which is favourable to appellant is to be considered in the light of apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973)88 ITR 192 (SC). f) Copy of Assessing Officer s letter was forwarded to appellant for his reply. Appellant submitted copy of site plan showing the plot no.13 in Vijaya Cooperative House Building Society which was physically measured and certified by KhairatabadMand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
