TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below have erred In imposing wealth tax on a non-urban land, of 21.65 acres (equivalent to 3464 maria) situated at Khata No. 335, Village-Bandwahi, Gurgaon, which does not fall in the ambit of 'assets' under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in confirming addition of Rs. 11,03,68,870/- to the net wealth of the assessee by adopting the circle rate of the land as on 31.03.2014, which is not as per the rules laid down under Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO's action by adopting the circle rate of for stamp duty purpose applicable on agricultural of the village. The assessee has strongly relied upon the definition of 'urban land' as given in section 2(ea)(b), wherein the statute provides that the urban land does not include, land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes; or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force. Assessee's detailed submission in this regard has been incorporated from pages 6 to 17 of the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) has also called for the remand report from the AO, who submitted his remand report vide letter dated 30.11.2017 which too has been incorpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the land in question has no value. The departmental valuer has established that the entire land is not 'Ger Mumkin Pahar' but 'Bhud Land' also. Infact 17.1375 acres is 'Ger Mumkin Pahar' and 4.5125 acres is 'Bhud Land'. I find that there is no necessity or compulsion for the appellant to sell the entire chunk of land in one piece. As such, this plea of the appellant is also not acceptable. Accordingly, I determine the value of land in question at Rs. 11,36,75,000/-, against that determined by AO at Rs. 27,02,50,000/-." 4. After hearing both the parties at length and on perusal of the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us, we find that the moot question befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of ten years from the date of its acquisition by him." 5. The urban land which is treated as a capital asset for the purpose of imposing wealth tax must be that, firstly, the land should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen it shall be outside the scope of taxable asset. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the opinion that this matter needs to be sent back to the file of the AO, who shall seek clarification from the Government authorities or the local authority as to whether the construction is permissible by any law in force on the land in which this asset is situated. Assessee will also try to obtain necessary certificates/Records from the authorities in this regard and cooperate with the AO and if it is found to be a waste land where construction is not permitted, then it should be removed from taxable asset. With this direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result appeal of the appellant assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|