9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for adjudication. 3. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Earlier, the CWT (A) Hyderabad had dismissed the appeals for the A.Y 2007-08 to 2011-12 vide order dated 21.10.2016 due to delay in filing of the appeals. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 23.10.2019 remitted all these appeals back to the file of the CWT (A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merit. 4. First we take up the appeal in WTA No.10/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2007-08 as the lead case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her wealth tax return. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of M/s. T. Jagan Mohan Rao and others on 16.09.2010 during which certain incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were seized. Accordingly, assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was completed in the hands of the assessee on 22.3.2013. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is having taxable net wealth as on 31.3.2007 but the assessee has not filed any wealth tax return. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 17 of the Act to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut not exceeding ten lakh; or III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than ten lakh, but 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 forçe 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" The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the above category. As regards urban land given for development, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar G.Yadalam v. CWT ((2016) 384 ITR 52 (SC)] vide order dated 24.07.2015 held that only a land in which the building is completely constructed stands excluded under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house or part of a house or a plot of land belonging to an individual or a Hindu undivided family: Provided that wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of an asset being a plot of land comprising an area of five hundred square meters or less.]" The same is acceptable as long as the appellant has not claimed any other exemption with regard to the same. The appellant is directed to file the necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer in this regard and the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the appellant. Subject to the above directions, the ground no.3 is partly allowed." 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, erred in sustaining of the action of the wealth Tax Officer in considering the property situated at Radha Realtors, which was under construction, as asset within the meaning of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Acet. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the ld. Commissioner oi Wealth Tax (Appeals) fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,203). 12. He submitted that as per the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Potla Nageswara Rao {reported as (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP); the assessee had transferred land to an extent of 4,136 in favour of the Developer pursuant to Development Agreement cum GPA dated 11.07.2006. Therefore, the AO while arriving at the value of the land in question (1,067 sq.yards) which is retained by the Appellant should have adopted the value at Rs.29,73,920. 13. He submitted that in so far as the land that was transferred pursuant to Development Agreement is concerned, the same cannot be taken into consideration in the hands of the Appellant as there is a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 of the Act as held by the jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of Sri Potla Nageswara Rao (Supra) (referred to above). He submitted that said land stood transferred to the Developer by the valuation date V1Z, 31.03.2007. Therefore, the AO could not have considered the land so transferred in any of the assessment years under consideration. He accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to adopt the value of the Asset in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
