9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had shown the value at Rs. 5,17,221 3. The WTO following his order in assessment year 1973-74 valued the agricultural lands at Rs. 5,20,000 and allowed statutory exemption, thereon. When the matter was carried in appeal, the learned AAC confirmed the valuation at Rs. 5,17,221 on two grounds. First was that the assessee itself had declared the value at Rs. 5,17,221 and therefore, this assessment had to be charged to wealth-tax. Secondly the lands were in possession of the assessee and the question of determination of the extent of land permissible of HUF under the Ceiling of Agricultural Holding Act (hereinafter described as the Land Ceiling Act) was under dispute and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had been divested of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee in its protest letter that agricultural lands in excess of 40 acres were not includible in its net wealth. 7. Now coming to the point raised by the learned counsel with regard to chargeability of wealth-tax on agricultural lands measuring 1830 acres valued at Rs. 5,17,221, it was contended that the Addl. Commissioner who was the competent authority under the Act, for passing an order under s. 11 of the Land Ceiling Act, had passed an order on 16th March, 1967 wherein he held that the assessee was entitled to hold 949.35 acres only. Another order wherein the assessee was held to be entitled to hold only 75 acres of agricultural land. Again on 14th July, 1976 the competent authority held that the assessee was entilted to hold onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in s. 2 (e) of the Act and it includes property of every description except that excluded therein. Agricultural lands are included assets from asst. yr. 1970 onwards, these definitions will clearly shows that agricultural lands belonging to the assessee were chargeable to tax on the valuation dates relevant for assessment year under appeal. 10. The leaned counsel lastly contended that in view of the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, there was a prohibition on sale of Agricultural lands excess of the prescribed ceiling and therefore, there was no ready market for these lands. He invited our attention to s. 7 of the WT Act according to which the value of any asset has to be estimated as the price it would fetch if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , of the legality of the sale or the terms of the contract governing the alienability of the property in question. Where the property is of a personal nature the benefit of which cannot be sold, an assumption should be made that the purchaser on his purchase would be able to enjoy the property in the same manner as the assessee was doing. The national value which would be obtained under those conditions designed by the section as the value of the asset. The question whether there was in fact a market and the property could in fact be sold is wholly immaterial." 13. We, therefore, reject the argument advanced by learned counsel and hold that the WTO was right in including the agricultural land valued at Rs. 5,17,221 in the net wealth of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
