TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is debatable point whether 'stock-in-trade' is or is not covered by the term 'business premises' used in the Explanation to clause (c) of Para. A of the Schedule of rates of wealth-tax and, therefore, it was not an error patent and obvious one capable of rectification ? " The facts leading to these four references are as follows : Assessment years under consideration are assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and it possesses two buildings at Baroda, namely, Indira Nivas, which is used by it for its self-occupation and Kadam Building which is not occupied by the family. Apart from these two buildings, the assessee was also possessed of vast agricultural lands 'which were converted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to non-agricultural use and were held by the assessee-family as stock-in-trade, could be said to be " business premises " because if they formed " business premises ", then they would be taken out of the additional tax under cl. (c) of Para. A of Part I as it then stood. For the purpose of Part I, " business premises ", according to the Explanation to Part I, meant any building or land or part of such building or land, or any right in building or land or part thereof, owned by the assessee and used throughout the previous year for the purposes of his business or profession, and included any building used for the purpose or residence of persons employed in the business or any building used for the welfare of such persons as a hospital, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no mistake apparent from the record for rectification by the WTO and hence the Tribunal set aside the orders of rectification and allowed the appeals of the assessee. Thereafter, at the instance of the revenue, these four references have been made to us by the Tribunal for our opinion. Now it is clear, as the Tribunal has pointed out, that it requires debate and considerable arguments for the purpose of elucidating what is meant by " business premises" and if the former agricultural lands converted to non-agricultural use are held by the HUF, the assessee before us, as part of its stock-in-trade, whether these lands cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese principles relating to the powers of the WTO in rectification cases under s. 35 of the Act that the matter will have to be looked at. The provisions of s. 35 of the W.T. Act are in pari materia with the provisions of s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the context of s. 154 of the I.T. Act would apply with equal force to the problems arising under s. 35 of the W.T. Act. As the Tribunal has rightly pointed out, it is a debatable question whether the stock-in-trade in the shape of land or buildings held by a particular assessee can or cannot be said to be " business premises " in view of the Explanation to cl. (c) of Para. A of the First Part of the Schedule of the W.T. Act as it stood at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|