9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no escapement of wealth. 2. The learned CWT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of alleged urban land of Rs. 69,34,500 on the ground that it is not disclosed in the wealth tax return in as much as the Land of Rs. 69,34,500 was purchased for the purpose of construction of residential building out of Long Term Capital Gain arising out of sale of original residential building under Section 54 and that the construction of residential building was completed and the same was disclosed in the Wealth Tax return for A.Y. 2011-2012. 3. The CWT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of gold and silver ornaments of Rs. 1,96,543 on the ground that there is no proof to show that the same is included in the gold and silver ornaments of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessing Officer, the submissions of the assessee and the material available on the records. The assessee has contended that the plot of land was not an asset within the meaning of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, as it was not a plot of land, but was "building under construction". However, the assessee has failed to adduce any evidence to support his claim and to establish that the land was anything but urban land within the meaning of section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee has submitted that the plot of land was purchased to construct a residential house for herself, but has failed to submit any evidence to establish that she had any relevant permissions from any Competent Authority, during the year under considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is upheld. The assessee fails on this ground of appeal." 3. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee urges us to read down the definition of vacant land in such a manner so as to exclude land purchased bonafide for constructing a building where the process of obtaining approval could not be even initiated due to very short time gap between the date of acquisition and the relevant date of valuing wealth for wealth tax purposes. He submits that the land was acquired on 27th March, 2008 and the assessee could not have initiated, leave aside obtain, requisite approvals for constructing the building. He submits that treating such a land as vacant land, for wealth tax purposes, wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule of construction according to which the intention of Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. It will be well to recall the words of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64 (KB) at page 71, that: "....in a taxing Act one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be." 6. In this view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
