2018 (4) TMI 411 - AT - Wealth-tax

Treating value of freehold land as a taxable asset u/s 2(ea) - whether the freehold land held by the assessee as vacant as on the valuation date i.e. 31.3.2009 on which the construction has been started for setting up of its office and service centre could be stated to be used for industrial purposes so as to fall within the ambit of definition of urban land and consequential exemption from levy of wealth tax? - Held that - The expression industrial purpose should mean in our considered opinion as applicable to all industries that are engaged in manufacturing as well as servicing activities. Admittedly the assessee herein is engaged in service activity. Hence we are afraid to give a restricted meaning to the expression industrial purposes used in exception to definition of urban land in wealth tax act. On the contrary we hold that the expression industrial purpose has been loosely used and hence need to be given a wider import so as bring even the service industry within its meaning. The assets deployed for service activities are treated as productive assets and accordingly the construction / set up of office and service center by the assessee and used as such for its business purposes would be outside the ambit of wealth tax in the same manner in which the factory structure or manufacturing establishment is excluded and the beneath land on which such structure to come should have the same wealth tax treatment. The assessee had used the land only for its business purposes by constructing a building in the subject mentioned land and is carrying on its regular business from the said premises. Hence we hold that the land was used by the assessee only for its business purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the freehold land held by the assessee qualifies as a taxable asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
2. Whether the land was used for "industrial purposes" and thus exempt from wealth tax.
3. Chargeability of interest under Section 17B of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the freehold land held by the assessee qualifies as a taxable asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:

The primary issue revolves around whether the value of the freehold land should be considered a taxable asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee argued that the land, purchased exclusively for setting up an office and service center, is exempt as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to Section 2(ea) of the Act, which excludes any unused land held for industrial purposes for two years from the date of acquisition. The assessee commenced construction within two years, thus claiming the land should not be considered a taxable asset.

2. Whether the land was used for "industrial purposes" and thus exempt from wealth tax:

The term "industrial purposes" is not defined in the Wealth Tax Act or the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that "industrial purposes" should include activities beyond manufacturing, such as providing services. The assessee cited various dictionary definitions and legal precedents to support this broader interpretation. The AO contended that the land was not used for industrial purposes as the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing. However, the tribunal concluded that "industrial purposes" should encompass service activities, and since the land was intended and used for business purposes, it should be exempt from wealth tax.

3. Chargeability of interest under Section 17B of the Act:

The issue of interest under Section 17B is consequential and does not require specific adjudication. The tribunal noted that the outcome of the primary issues would determine the applicability of interest.

Conclusion:

The tribunal held that the freehold land used for setting up an office and service center qualifies as being used for "industrial purposes" and is thus exempt from wealth tax under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The appeal was partly allowed, with the primary ground in favor of the assessee and the issue of interest being consequential. The decision underscores the broader interpretation of "industrial purposes" to include service activities, aligning with the legislative intent to exclude productive assets from wealth tax.