9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s situated at Moti Magri, Udaipur is not exigible to wealth-tax as the same is agricultural land. Therefore, it cannot be construed to be "asset" within the meaning and purview of s. 2(e) of the WT Act, 1957. 3. Before we come to grips with this issue, it would be beneficial to keep in focus the factual canvass of the case. The appellant HUF purchased a piece of land measuring 2-1/2 bighas and 2 biswas at Moti Magri, Udaipur from two parties on 31st Jan., 1974 for Rs. 19,998. It was claimed that it is agricultural land, hence not exigible to wealth-tax. In support of the claim appellant filed before the lower authorities copy of purchase deed, copy of Khasra girdawari, copy of sale deed, copy of acquisition notices, etc. 4. It was claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 69 70; (2) in the case of Servon Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 881(Guj), their Lordships have held that the fact that for merely 17 years the land was being kept fallow and was being used for agricultural purpose but was not actually cultivated and was lying fallow was immaterial. The fact that a show was sought to be made for four years that the land was being used for agricultural purposes was again totally immaterial because even if the land was treated as lying fallow, if the land was shown in the revenue records as agricultural land or as land being put to agricultural use and permission for non-agricultural use under s. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code had not bee obtained, it must be treated as ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the land, the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase and the high price paid, etc. Were not sufficient to dislodge the presumption arising from the user of the land for agricultural purposes; (7) in the case of Vajulal Chunilal (HUF) (1979) 120 ITR 21 (Guj) it was held that the presumption that the mere fact that permission has been granted under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the authorities concerned for sale of agricultural land to a non-agricultural would not result in the land ceasing to be agricultural land. 7. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative appeared before us and supported the orders of the lower authorities. No doubt, learned Departmental Representative contended that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Z.M. Merchant vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 512. In this case exemption was claimed on account of the capital gain arising out of the sale of the agricultural land. Tribunal found that land was not put to agricultural use and had been sold for construction of building thereon. On these facts it was decided that land was not agricultural. 8. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. We have examined the documents. It appears from the perusal of the Khasra girdawari that the land was put to agricultural use. The mere fact that the land is situated within the municipal limit and in the heart of the city, in our opinion, is not a circumstance aliunde to which it can be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
