9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 603 - AT - Wealth-taxWealth tax assessment - notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act - HELD THAT - Provisions of section 42 of the act saves only validly issued notices within the time limit, if, not served upon the assessee, not served upon him in time and served upon him in an improper manner, if not objected before WTO. Notice itself has been issued beyond the time prescribed u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act. Thus, according to us the provision of section 42 does not apply to a situation where the notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act. The ld CWT (A) has erred in invoking of provisions of section 42 of the WT Act to such notice, which has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 16(2) of the WT Act. Accordingly, we hold that as the ld Wealth Tax Officer has failed to issue the notice u/s 16(2) on or before 30.08.2012 but issued on 13.09.2012, is invalid and consequently wealth tax assessment order passed on the assessee cannot be sustained, hence, quashed. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 2. Classification of agriculture land as urban land for wealth tax purposes 3. Enhancement of value of agriculture land without proper opportunity Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - The appeal challenged the notice issued on 13.09.2012, arguing it should have been served by 31 August 2012. The CIT(A) rejected the challenge citing the assessee's lack of objection during the assessment. - The provision of section 16(2) mandates serving a notice within 12 months of filing the return. The notice in this case was issued on 13.09.2012, beyond the statutory period. - Section 42 of the Act deems notice valid if the assessee cooperated in the assessment process, but it does not validate notices issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal held the notice invalid due to being issued after the deadline, quashing the assessment order. Issue 2: Classification of agriculture land as urban land - The appellant contested the classification of agriculture land in Neb Sarai, New Delhi, as urban land, denying exemption under the Wealth Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the taxability of this land. - The appellant argued that the land was certified as agriculture land by the S.D.M., prohibiting construction, and should be exempt even under the old Act. The Tribunal did not address this issue due to the decision on the notice validity. Issue 3: Enhancement of value of agriculture land - The appellant challenged the enhancement of the value of agriculture land without proper opportunity to present the case. This issue was left open as the Tribunal's decision on the notice rendered further adjudication unnecessary. - The CIT(A) had increased the value from Cost to Circle rate/Market Value without allowing the appellant to present a case, leading to the enhancement being questioned. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the invalidity of the notice u/s 16(2), rendering the wealth tax assessment order unsustainable. The issues regarding the classification of agriculture land and value enhancement were not addressed due to the decision on the notice.
|
