2010 (2) TMI 635 - HC - Wealth-tax

Exemption - Value of House under construction and investment on construction - incomplete building of the assessee neither falls within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of urban land as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Act. The burden of proof was on the Revenue and the adjudicating authority was required to record a categoric finding that the building of the assessee actually exigible to wealth-tax. Meaning thereby, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the incomplete building/urban land of the assessee is such, that squarely falls within the four corners of assets, as defined in section 2(ea) of the Act and liable to wealth-tax, which is totally lacking in the present case. - Not liable to wealth tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether an incomplete building under construction is liable to wealth-tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?
2. Whether the value of a house under construction is considered as 'building' or 'urban land' for the purpose of wealth-tax under the Act?

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves appeals filed by the Revenue against an assessee regarding the construction of a residential house on a jointly owned plot. The assessing authority added the value of the plot and the investment in construction to the net wealth of the assessee, which was contested in subsequent appeals.
2. The assessee argued that the incomplete house under construction did not fall within the definition of assets under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, as it was not completed and thus not declared in the wealth return.
3. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's appeal, leading to further appeals by the Revenue. The central issue was whether the incomplete building of the assessee qualified as an asset liable to wealth-tax under the Act.
4. The High Court analyzed previous judgments, including Cadmach Machinery Co. and Prem Nath Motors Pvt. Ltd., to determine the applicability of the definition of 'building' under the Act to the incomplete structure in the present case.
5. The Court held that the incomplete building of the assessee did not fall within the definition of assets as per section 2(ea) of the Act, as it lacked essential components for residential or commercial use, and thus, could not be considered a complete structure.
6. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that the incomplete building could be classified as 'urban land,' as it was being constructed with approval from the appropriate authority, further supporting the conclusion that it did not meet the criteria for wealth-tax liability.
7. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish that the incomplete building was liable to wealth-tax under the Act, which was not fulfilled in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
8. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the value of the house under construction, including the investment made, was not liable to wealth-tax, answering the substantial questions of law against the Revenue and dismissing the appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant case law references, and the final decision rendered by the High Court in the matter.