9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,600/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s 17 of the WTA Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was issued to the assessee requiring him to file the return of wealth for the assessment year 2009-10. In response to notice, the assessee has filed a letter dated 4.4.2014 and requested to treat the return originally filed on 17.9.2010 as return filed in response to notice u/s 17 of the Act. The case has been selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 16(2) of the Act was issued. In response to the notice, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details called for. The A.O. after considering the details furnished by the assessee completed the assessment u/s 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Act and det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered by the assessee not considered by the CWT(A) in a judicious manner. 1.5 The learned CWT(A) failed to consider the submission of the assessee in the right perspective instead in a summary and casual manner concluded that the subject asset is liable for Wealth Tax and this way affirmed the action of the assessing officer. 1.6 Aggrieved by the orders the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT to seek justice. 4. The assessee also raised an additional ground. However, the same has been not pressed during the course of hearing. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee has been dismissed as not pressed. 5. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CWT(A) was erred in holding that the land held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. further submitted that the impugned land held by the assessee is under dispute. As per the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Act, any land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force, then the same shall not be considered as asset for the purpose of wealth tax. The asset held by the assessee is under civil dispute and there is an injunction order from the court of Third additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide OS No.248 of 2003 dated 23.7.2003. The A.R. further submitted that these facts have been brought to the knowledge of the developer by way of memorandum of understanding dated 31.7.2007 vide clause no.3.1 of the MOU. To this effect furnished copies of MOU dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was purchased. The A.O. not denied the fact that the assessee has entered into a JDA. The A.O. simply was of the opinion that the assessee purchased the land as an investor, therefore, it cannot be considered as stock in trade. 7. The only issue that came up for our consideration is whether the land held by the assessee is an urban land coming within the definition of asset as per section 2(ea) of the Act or is a stock in trade, which is kept outside the definition of asset. It is the contention of the assessee that the land held by him is a stock in trade, therefore, it cannot be considered as an asset. We do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee for the reason that the assessee himself has admitted that he had purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, as per which status co should be maintained till further orders and the court has passed final decree in original suit on 13-10-2015. Between this period i.e., from 23-07-2003 to 13-10-2015, the land is under court injunction and hence, no activity can be taken up on the said land. Therefore, any land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force is not an urban land, which is coming within the definition of assets u/s 2(ea) of the Act. To this effect, filed copy of injection order and decree copy of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also relied upon the decision of High Court of Bombay at Goa in the case of Prabhakar Kesav Kunde and Others Vs CIT (2010) 235 CTR 119. We find force in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of the order is reproduced hereinunder. "Sec. 2(ea) defines 'the assets' in relation to the assessment year commencing on 1st April, 1993 and subsequent assessment years and includes in it 'urban land'. The expression 'urban land' has been defined in Expln. (b) to s. 2(ea). The definition of urban land excludes from the definition of urban land any land on which construction of a building is not permissible. The land which is unbuildable under any law for the time being in force is not an urban land and, as such, is not an asset within the meaning of s. 2(ea). Consequently, the land which is not buildable under any law for the time being in force is not included in assessable wealth of a person. Since the property in question consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
