9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 480 - AT - Wealth-taxTreatment of asset as stock in trade - Held that - The assessee has purchased urban vacant land located at Banjara Hills and entered in to development agreement with Vulcon Project Developers Pvt. Ltd for development of the land but no development took place till the date of valuation date. The assessee declared the asset in the balance sheet as a fixed asset and no supporting evidence was placed by the assessee with regard to the claim of the assessee as stock in trade. The property was not converted as a business asset in the relevant period. On identical facts in the case of Devineni Avinash for the A.Y.2009-10, the coordinate Bench 2016 (7) TMI 422 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM held that the asset is an investment but not stock in trade. Litigation on the property before the Hon ble Civil Court with an injunction order to maintain status quo till further orders - Held that - The land in question cannot be excluded from the definition of asset from the definition of section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act and CWT(A) has rightly directed the AO to hold that the same required to be brought to Wealth Tax purpose. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CWT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
Issues Involved
1. Whether the vacant land situated in Sheikpet, Hyderabad, is liable for Wealth Tax. 2. Whether the property should be considered as stock-in-trade and thus exempt from Wealth Tax. 3. The impact of litigation and interim injunction orders on the classification of the property under Wealth Tax Act. Detailed Analysis 1. Liability of Vacant Land for Wealth Tax The primary issue is whether the vacant land at Sheikpet, Hyderabad, is liable for Wealth Tax. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] and the assessing officer (AO) concluded that the land is liable for Wealth Tax. The AO found that the property was not used for business purposes and was declared as a fixed asset in the income tax returns. Despite the development agreement with Vulcon Project Developers Pvt. Ltd., no development occurred by the valuation date. Therefore, the property was assessed as an investment, not as stock-in-trade, making it liable for Wealth Tax. 2. Property as Stock-in-Trade The assessee argued that the property should be considered as stock-in-trade, which is exempt from Wealth Tax for ten years from the date of purchase. However, the AO and CWT(A) found no supporting evidence for this claim. The property was shown as a fixed asset in the balance sheet, and the assessee did not conduct any business activities related to the land. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing a similar case (Devineni Avinash for A.Y. 2009-10) where the property was treated as an investment, not stock-in-trade. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this issue. 3. Impact of Litigation and Interim Injunction Orders The assessee contended that due to an interim injunction order from the City Civil Court in OS No.248 of 2003, which prohibited construction on the land, the property should not be considered as an asset under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The CWT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the injunction order does not equate to a legal prohibition against construction under the law. This view was supported by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which clarified that an interim order in a private property dispute does not exclude the land from being classified as an asset under section 2(ea). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CWT(A)'s decision to include the property in the Wealth Tax assessment. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee, affirming the CWT(A)'s decision that the vacant land at Sheikpet, Hyderabad, is liable for Wealth Tax. The property was not considered stock-in-trade due to lack of evidence and was classified as an investment. The interim injunction order from the City Civil Court did not exempt the property from being classified as an asset under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 8th December 2017.
|
