TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strates that the Developers did have power to alienate their portion of the property; and they had entered into the property. It is a different matter if the project did not progress further. A mere failure of the project does not undo the acts of the parties. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order passed by the ITAT is not sustainable and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just and appropriate for the ITAT to have a re- look into the matter in the light of the contents of MDA, NOC issued under Chapter XX-C and the letter written by Shri. Dhingra. Appeals are allowed. - W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR And THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE FOR THE APPELLANT : DR. C.P. RAMASWAMY FOR SHRI. BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENTS : SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT These appeals by the assessees are directed against common impugned order dated February 12, 2016 passed by the ITAT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench in W.T.As. No.37 to 42/Bang/2014, W.T.As. No.43 to 45/Bang/2014 and W.T.As. No.46 to 51/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. On the same day a Settlement Agreement was entered into between the appellants, CIDL and M/s. ITC Ltd., and the appellants were compelled to convey the properties in question in favour of ITC Ltd. 4. The Assessing Authority took up appellants' cases for scrutiny assessment and issued Notices under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07. In response to the Notices, appellants filed 'NIL' returns. The Assessing Authority initiated proceedings and passed orders under Section 16(3) read with Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act dated December 30, 2009 and determined the net wealth in the case of:- A.G. Noorani Appellant in WTA. No.9/2016 as Rs. 7.42 crores, Rs. 11.68 crores and Rs. 12.93 crores for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively; Verde Developers Appellant in WTA No.11/2016 as Rs. 16.32 crores, Rs. 25.35 crores, Rs. 27.73 crores and Rs. 40.66 crores for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively; Triad Resorts Appellant in WTA No.10/2016 as Rs. 7.48 crores, Rs. 11.53 crores, Rs. 12.62 crores and Rs. 18.55 crores for the Assessment Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich would establish that the possession of the properties was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 20) Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle Vl(2), Chennai [2020] 421 ITR 46 (para nos. 11,13,14 and 17) 11. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 12. Wealth Tax is chargeable under Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. It is a tax in respect of the net wealth of every individual, HUF and Company. Net Wealth is defined in Section 2(n) as 'the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of all assets wherever located. As per Section 2(ea), 'urban land' falls within the definition of 'assets'. It is not in dispute that the appellants own urbun land and they are assessable for Wealth tax. 13. Appellants' case is, they had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the CIDL for development of their lands. A careful perusal of the Master Developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that JDA does not call for any title or transfer of any interest in the immovable property. Further, by referring to CWT Vs. Bishwanath Chatterji 103 ITR 356 and Late Nawab Sir Meer Osman Ali Khan 162 ITR 888 [2017], it has held that the Assessee Companies continued to be the owners of the land and liable to pay Wealth Tax. 17. Shri. Aravind, for the Revenue has placed reliance on the following authorities: CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (Para 20) Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of IT, Chennai [2020] 421 ITR 46 (Para 2) 18. Clause 13 of the MDA requires the parties to submit relevant forms for issuance of 'No Objection' under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act. Clause 13(2) provides for entering upon respective properties to carry out the development and construction. 19. Shri. Ramaswamy has placed for our consideration, a copy of the 'No Objection' dated March 12, 2001, issued by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C and a letter dated May 19, 2001 by Surjit Singh Dhingra stating that CIDL had taken possession of the property on March 26, 2001. The entire case of the Revenue with regard to the 'possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
