9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1195 - AT - Wealth-taxUrban land chargeable to wealth tax - Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation - Lands in question exempted for wealth tax under section 2(ea) - HELD THAT - Lands in question are exempted from wealth tax under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, hence, not chargeable to wealth tax Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation on which no construction is put up is not chargeable to wealth tax. Therefore, the assessee's case squarely falls within the definition of agricultural land as well as the amended provisions of Wealth Tax Act, where construction is not permissible. Accordingly we hold that the lands in question are exempted for wealth tax u/s 2(ea), hence not chargeable to wealth tax. We are unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee. See SRI VEGESNA ANANTHA KOTI RAJU VERSUS DCWT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM 2018 (2) TMI 1878 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned lands are agricultural lands as per land records. 2. Relevancy of agricultural operations on the impugned lands. 3. Permissibility of construction on the impugned lands. 4. Validity of additional evidence submitted by the assessee. 5. Whether the impugned lands qualify for exemption under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the impugned lands are agricultural lands as per land records: The assessee argued that the impugned lands are classified as agricultural lands according to the land records and certificates issued by the Tahsildar. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] accepted this classification, noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide evidence to the contrary. The lands were endorsed as agricultural by the Tahsildar, and there was no conversion to non-agricultural land recorded. 2. Relevancy of agricultural operations on the impugned lands: The assessee contended that the classification of land as agricultural in government records is sufficient, irrespective of whether agricultural operations were conducted. The CWT(A) supported this view, citing case law that agricultural classification in records suffices for exemption purposes. The AO's claim that agricultural operations were not carried out was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. 3. Permissibility of construction on the impugned lands: The AO argued that construction was permissible on the lands if they were converted to non-agricultural use. However, no such conversion had occurred. The CWT(A) held that since the lands were not converted, construction was not permissible, aligning with the definition of urban land in section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, which excludes land where construction is not permissible under any law. 4. Validity of additional evidence submitted by the assessee: The assessee submitted satellite images and reports from Remote Sensing Instruments (RSI), which the AO rejected due to the unavailability of images from the relevant financial year. The CWT(A) considered the additional evidence, including the endorsement certificates and Adangal records, and found them sufficient to support the assessee's claims. The CWT(A) noted that the AO did not provide contradictory material to invalidate the RSI report. 5. Whether the impugned lands qualify for exemption under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act: The CWT(A) concluded that the lands qualify for exemption under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, as they are classified as agricultural and no construction is permissible. This conclusion was supported by case law from various high courts and the ITAT Visakhapatnam's decision in a similar case (Sri Vegesna Anantha Koti Raju Vs. DCWT). Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CWT(A)'s decision, affirming that the impugned lands are exempt from wealth tax under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was deemed infructuous. The judgment emphasized the importance of land classification in government records and the non-permissibility of construction for wealth tax exemption.
|
