2021 (4) TMI 269 - HC - Wealth-tax

Refund of wealth tax paid on urban agricultural land to the petitioner along with statutory interest - Assessee stated that in absence of clarity of legal position regarding taxability of wealth tax on agricultural land, he had paid the Wealth Tax on agricultural land owned by the him but as per the amended Section 2(e)(a) of the Act, the urban agricultural land is not assessable for the purpose of wealth tax and the said amendment was inserted vide Finance Act, 2013 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993 and therefore, the amount already deposited by the writ applicant is required to be refunded - HELD THAT - There is no dispute with regard to amended provision of Section 2(e)(a) which provides that the urban agricultural land is not assessable for the purpose of wealth tax and the amendment would applicable with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1993 - Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (CBDT) has issued circular No. 11/2015 dated 11.06.2015, whereby, in case of expiry of time limit for claiming refund by way of filing revised return or rectification application, the assessee can file Revision Application under Section 25 of the Act before the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Wealth-tax. In view of the amended provision which provides that the urban land shall not be chargeable to wealth tax and subsequent circular issued by the CBDT as referred to above, it is evident that those who have paid the wealth tax for the urban agricultural land, for which otherwise, they are not liable to pay, they can claim refund either by way of filing revised return or rectification application within time prescribed under the Act and if time limit is expired, then as per the Circular, the refund may be claimed by filing Revision Application before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Wealth Tax, who has been authorized to decide the claim of the refund in accordance with law. It appears from the record that the rectification application filed by the assessee was disposed of on technical ground. Record further shows that the assessee has filed Revision Application dated 14.11.2018 under Section 25(1) of the Act claiming the refund for the year under consideration, which is still pending without any further adjudication. Revenue has fairly stated that the revision is still pending and it can be disposed of subject to necessary orders passed by the court. When the assessee has filed Revision Application as per the CBDT Circular, then, the authority concerned should decide the same in accordance with law. Therefore, in view of above, we dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondent authority to hear and decide the Revision Application filed by the assessee for claiming of the refund for the year under consideration in accordance with law within period of 2 (two) months from the receipt of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of wealth tax paid on urban agricultural land under the Wealth Tax Act.

Analysis:
The writ applicant, as the Karta of HUF, filed a return under the Wealth Tax Act for the AY 2011-12, paying wealth tax on agricultural land due to lack of clarity on taxability. However, an amendment exempting urban agricultural land from wealth tax was made with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993. The applicant sought a refund based on this amendment and a CBDT circular allowing refunds for such cases.

The High Court acknowledged the amended provision exempting urban agricultural land from wealth tax with retrospective effect and the CBDT circular allowing refunds for taxes paid on such land. The court emphasized that claimants could seek refunds through revised returns, rectification applications, or Revision Applications under Section 25 of the Act before the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Wealth-tax.

The court noted that the rectification application by the applicant was dismissed on technical grounds, and a Revision Application for refund was pending since 2018. The revenue's advocate confirmed the pending revision and expressed readiness for disposal, subject to court orders. The court emphasized the need for the authority to decide on the Revision Application as per the CBDT Circular and the law, without raising technical issues like limitation.

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ application by directing the respondent authority to hear and decide the Revision Application for refund within two months from the order receipt. The court instructed the authority to focus on the application's merits rather than technicalities, clarifying that the court had not assessed the case's merits. The court discharged the notice, concluding the disposal of the writ application.