2022 (9) TMI 615 - AT - Wealth-tax

Net wealth estimation - nature of the land sold - Whether land is required to be treated as agricultural land irrespective of the fact, it is situated in urban area? - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the urban land has been defined under the Act under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to clause (ea) of Section 2 of the Act. From the perusal of the above definition, it is clear that the land though situated in the urban area, but it would not be classified as an urban land, if the land continues to be reflected in the government record as agricultural land and land being used for agricultural purposes. CWT(A) was required to seek a report from the Revenue Authority and find out whether during the relevant period the land purchased by the assessee continues to be agricultural land in revenue records or not and further it was used for agricultural purposes or not. In our view, Assessing Officer / ld.CWT(A) should have issued summons under the relevant provision of the Act and sought the documents / report about the nature of land and its uses during the relevant assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14. We deem it appropriate to remand back all the three appeals with a common direction to the file of Assessing Officer for verification from the Revenue records as to 1) whether the land is situated in urban area; (2) if the land is situated in urban area, whether the same was mentioned in government records as agricultural land or not (3) whether the land is continued to be used for agriculture purpose during the relevant period and 4) Whether the predecessor in interest was carrying out the agricultural activities during the period. We deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo passing the assessment order afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14

Analysis:
1. The assessee contested the enhancement of net wealth by Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) from Rs. 3,03,36,500 to Rs. 11,19,75,280. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte due to non-filing of returns and lack of response to notices. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) enhanced the addition made by the Assessing Officer, relying on inadequate evidence provided by the assessee.

2. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) found the document submitted by the assessee to be inadmissible evidence due to lack of official format, date, and officer details. The document did not prove the land's classification as agricultural in government records or its use for agricultural purposes, essential for exemption from wealth tax. The Commissioner concluded that the assessee failed to fulfill conditions to be exempt from wealth tax.

3. The assessee argued that the land, though in an urban area, was used for agriculture, supported by revenue department records and a certificate. The Commissioner was criticized for not cross-verifying the documents. The Range Head and Assessing Officer also opined against making additions, questioning the basis of the net wealth estimation.

4. The Tribunal observed that the land's classification as agricultural in revenue records and its actual use were crucial. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the land was classified as agricultural in government records and used for agriculture during the relevant years. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of seeking reports and documents from revenue authorities.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded all three appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, emphasizing the importance of verifying the land's classification and use for agriculture. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the need for proper verification of land classification and agricultural use to determine wealth tax liability, remanding the case for a fresh assessment based on accurate information and evidence.