9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r CWT(A) erred in not allowing suitable reduction in the value of land at village Waryana which was low lying and was adjoining to the water body - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of the CWT(A) as there was nothing brought on record by the assessee with regard to claim of rebate of 50% with regard to the land at village Wariana. As regards the valuation of land at village Madhar, the order of the CWT(A) in confirming the action of the AO is based on the rates prescribed by the Tehsildar and accordingly, rightly upheld the order of the A.O. appeal against assessee. - W.T.A. Nos.27 to 31(Asr)/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - H. S. Sidhu And B. P. Jain,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Sandeep Vijh CA For the Respondent : Sh. Tarsem Lal, DR ORDER PER BENCH :- These five appeals of the assessee arise from five different orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jalandhar, each dated 19.10.2011 for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07. The grounds of appeals in each of the appeal mentioned hereinabove are identical and common and for the sake of clarity, the grounds raised in WTA No.27(Asr)/2011 for the assessment year 2002-03 are reproduced as under: "1. That the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealed wealth. The AO noted that as per the Jamabandi filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was the owner of the lands falling within these villages and all the villages fell within the definition of 'urban land' under the Wealth Tax Act. He also referred to the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of Tara Singh S/o Jai Singh (supra) to hold that agricultural land falling within distance of 8 km from the limit of Municipal Corporation would fall within the definition of urban land for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act. He further stated that in the return of wealth the assessee had taken the value of the agricultural land owned by him at Nil. The AO noted that as per certificate from the Revenue Authority submitted by the assessee, the land at village Lidhran was situated within a distance of 1200 yards from the Army Ordinance Depot and consequently no construction was possible on this land. The AO, therefore, held that the land in this village did not fall within the definition of 'urban land'. The land situated in Suran was found by the AO to have been acquired after the valuation date. In respect of land at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the submissions made before the Ld. CWT(A). 6. The Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As regards ground No. 1 2, we concur with the views of the Ld. CWT(A) in para 4, 4.1 4.2 of his order that the issue of levy of wealth tax on agricultural land situated in urban areas or within specified distance of municipal limit has been decided by the ITAT in the case of Tara Singh vs. DCWT reported in 97 ITD 284(Asr) in which it had been held that on a plain reading of the provisions of W.T.Act, "agricultural land", if situated within the limits of municipal corporation or within 8 km of municipal limits, would be chargeable to Wealth Tax. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Charnpal Sigh Mann and Jagraj Singh Mann in WTA Nos 1 and 2 of 2003 dated 8.9.2003, have held that agricultural land which falls within municipal limits was chargeable to Wealth tax. The ITAT, Amritsar Bench has decided similar matters in WTA Nos. 1 and 2 (Asr)/2009 in the case of Sh. Gurdip Singh Nagra, WTA No. 25(Asr)/2009 in the case of Sh. Rajinder S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that mere non disposal of a technical objection prior to completing the assessment would not invalidate the reassessment proceedings if there was adequate material justifying reassessment and no prejudice was caused to the assessee. 7.1. The contention of the AR that wealth tax could not be levied in respect of agricultural land since this was a state subject was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to above upholding such levy. The contention that the web-site of the Income Tax Department gave an opinion that agricultural land situated in urban areas was not liable to wealth tax was not rightly accepted, since the view in a write-up cannot overrule the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The contention that wealth tax was not leviable in respect of agricultural land because no construction was permissible on such land is not supported by reference to any specific provisions of law or regulation. The AO has himself allowed relief on this ground where he found that regulations did not permit construction within specified distance of any army installat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
