TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee as there is a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 of the Act and only the value of the land that has been retained by the assessee of 1067 sq. yards valued at Rs.29,73,920/- can be considered for the purpose of net wealth. Since the lower authorities have not considered the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court cited(Supra), therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh regarding the value of the land in question that has been retained by the assessee and the portion of the land that has been given to the Developers as per the Jt. Development Agreement. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee - WTA Nos 10 to 14/Hyd/2022 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2022 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President And Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, DR Date of pronouncement: 23/11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the details filed by the assessee in the Wealth Tax Proceedings for the subsequent years that the property was under construction and was not handed over to the assessee as stated by her. In absence of any supporting document, the Assessing Officer valued the said property at Rs.1,40,02,972/- and determined the total wealth at Rs.1,50,63,377/- by making various other additions. 7. In appeal, the learned CWT(A) deleted the other additions but sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.1,40,02,972/- pertaining to the property Radha Realtors by observing as under: With regard to the addition pertaining to the investment shown in the head of Radha Realtors , the said addition is common for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12. The appellant stated that the property is under construction and was not handed over. It is important to note that Urban land is taxable under Wealth Tax and there are only certain exceptions to the same. The relevant section of Wealth Tax pertaining to Urban Land is as under: 2(ea) assets , in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, means (v) urban land; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the decision is as under: 17. No doubt, the purpose and objective of introducing Section 2(e/a) in the Act was to stimulate productive assets. However, the event when such a provision is to be attracted is also mentioned in Explanation 1(b) itself carving out those situations when the land is not to be treated urban land. The Legislature in its wisdom conferred the benefit of exemption in respect of urban vacant land only when the building is fully constructed and not when the construction activity has merely started. On the contrary, if the argument of the assessee is accepted, that would lead to absurd results in certain cases. For example, what would be the position if the construction of the building starts but the said construction is abandoned mid-way? If we accept the argument of the assessee, in such a case, assessee would be given the exemption from payment of wealth tax in the initial years and the same benefit would be denied in the year when it is found that construction was abandoned and, therefore, not complete. It would result in granting of benefit in the previous year(s), though that was not admissible. Such a situation cannot be countenanced. Presumably, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned, we find the learned CWT(A) sustained the addition based on the decision of 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. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the ground is decided against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar G.Yadalam v. CWT (Supra). Accordingly, the ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. So far as 2nd ground is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is an alternate ground. He submitted that the assessee is the owner of the land admeasuring Acr 1.03 guntas in Sy. Nos.98/U, 98/UU, 98/RU, 108/RUU, 108/LU, 108/A, 108/AA 109 situated in Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal Municipality, R.R. District. The assessee entered into a development agreement cum GPA on 11.7.2006 with M/s. Radha Realtors Pvt Ltd and as per clause 5 of the Development Agreement, the assessee is entitled to 3 residential houses to be constructed on Plot Nos. 55, 58 and 59 measuring 355 sq. yards each with a built-up area of 3100 sq.ft. A rectification deed was entered into on 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take this alternative argument. He submitted that the assessee was noncooperative before the Assessing Officer and the learned CWT(A) on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee before him has passed a detailed speaking order. Therefore, the same should be upheld and the ground raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 15. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. The facts as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs are not in dispute. The only grievance of the assessee in the above ground is regarding the taxability of the entire land for the purpose of wealth tax. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the entire value of the land could not have been considered for asset within the meaning of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act in the hands of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case valued the entire land of 1 Acre.03 guntas at Rs.1,40,02,927/- as the value of the asset for the year under consideration. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao (Supra) fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
