9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g addition of Rs. 2,74,26,025/- made by the AO on account of property at Station Road, Alwar 5. That the ld.CWT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting addition of Rs. 36,39,070/- made by the AO on account of property at Kush Marg, Alwar . 6. That the ld. CWT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting addition of Rs. 6,28,35,500/- made by the AO on account of property at Nangli Khor 2. The ld. DR contends that apropos the deletion of value of Raniwala Property, the AO carried out physical inspection and found that there was only a dilapidated building and no plant and machinery was found. Though this property was called as Raniwala Oil Mills situated at Mangal Marg, Alwar but there was actually no oil mill. The land is situated within urban area as defined u/s 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The ld. CWT(A) was not right in deleting this addition. It is further pleaded that ITAT Jaipur Bench order deleting the similar addition in the case of the other co-owner of the property Shri Shailendra Bhargava deserves to be reviewed and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial use for cinema hall, hotel, petrol pump etc. Initially this conversion was rejected but in 1986 it was allowed. By a lease deed dated 31-10-1986 the assessee was granted 'urban lease' rights in the said land and permission for construction of cinema hall, hotel, petrol pump was allowed. Thus the assessee was always the owner of this land and lease deed was only related to 'urban lease rights'. Thus it is wrong to claim that the assessee did not have full ownership rights over this land. Thus the land very much belonged to the assessee on all the valuation dates for assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04. As regards the decision of ld. CWT(A) that the land falls in the exclusion clause because the Urban Improvement Trust refused permission to construct hotel, it is submitted that as per Explanation 1(b) u/s 2(ea)(v) those cases are to be excluded in which the construction is not permissible in any area under any law for the time being in force. This will not cover cases where the construction is otherwise permissible by law but is refused by the concerned authorities on account of certain reasons. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hands vehemently argued that g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue has been discussed by the Tribunal for earlier years in paras 5.1 to 5.3. Operative para of the order is 5.3 which is reproduced as under :- "5.3 We have heard both the parties. The assessee has contended that the land is agricultural land and purchase deed also show that the land is agriculture. It is not the case of the revenue that it is not mentioned as agricultural land in the revenue record. There is no material on record to suggest that land is urban land and not agricultural land. We therefore, feel that the ld CWT(A) was justified in holding that this land is not liable to Wealth Tax." 11. Since facts are similar, therefore, following the earlier years' finding, we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) for this year also. (iv) Property at Kush Marg, Alwar -This addition has been deleted by ITAT vide order dated 16-11-2011 for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03 in WTA No. 6 to 10/JP/2011 which has been followed by ITAT in its order 07-03-2012 at page 13 in para 14 to 15. The same is reproduced as under. 14. Next issue relates to deleting the addition of wealth on account of share in property situated at Kush Marg, Alwar. 14.1. This issue has been discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial complex in the name of Data Arcade is under construction on the said premise and the appellant has also sold some of the shops on the basement/underground floor of the said complex. This fact of existence of Data Arcade has not been disputed by the Id. AO. The appellant has furnished supporting evidence to show that on the valuation date, commercial building known as Data Arcade was erected, constructed and functioning on the said property-and details of sale of three shops, copies of sale registries made in the month of March 2004 in the said commercial establishment has been furnished. From the balance sheet of Data Arcade as .on 31.03.2004 there is a stock in hand of Rs. 2,10,02,252/-. I find that the said complex is still under construction although the appellant has sold few shops on the under ground floor of the complex. In this regard I have considered the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited 325 ITR 528, where it has been held that once the land was utilized for construction purpose, the land ceased to have its identity as vacant land and it cannot be valued independently. Building under construction, whose work was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of land cannot be brought to wealth tax. 12. In the light of above, the ld. CWT(A) deleted the addition by following observation. 10.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the AR. I find that the appellant has been allotted two pieces of land by the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (UIT) in scheme No. 8 plot No. 21 having area of 2380.73 Sq. Feet and plot No. 15 having area of 790.65 Sq. Ft in exchange for plot No. 139/249 on 28.08.2003. The two pieces of land have been allotted on a 99 year lease hold basis, as per lease deed dated 01.09.2003 by the UIT, with a number of conditions which include payment of annual rent of Rs. 59463/-. Further, the lessee can construct office building with prior permission of the lessor and after getting approval of the map. The lessee can not transfer any part of the office land without prior written permission of the lessor. The lessee will not make any construction or changes in the office land without permission of the lessor. The lessee will hand over the office land and the building on it to the lessor on completion of the lease period. I am inclined to agree with the AR of the appellant that the above sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition in view of legal fiction and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. DCWT, 299 ITR 335. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Apropos the ground no. 1 to 3 and 5, we are of the considered view that the issues in question are squarely covered by ITAT judgements in assessee's own case as well as the same issues are also decided in favour of the co-owner. Relevant paras are reproduced above. Respectfully following the earlier ITAT judgements in assessee's own case , the issues relating to property at Raniwala Oil Mills, property at Mangal Marg, Alwar, property at Rishikesh and property at Kush Marg, Alwar as raised by the Revenue in 1 to 3 and 5 are dismissed. 14. Coming to ground 4 i.e. property at Station Road, Alwar also, we see no infirmity in the order of the ld. CWT(A) as on the valuation date the property had become the commercial complex and reflected as commercial asset in the accounts of the assessee which is further evident from the fact that some of the shops were also sold. Thus the building in question was a commercial complex which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
