9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the property situated at Yenamalakuduru, near Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The assessee is holding land admeasuring 0.58.11 cents at Yenamalakuduru Village, near Vijayawada which is with in the 8 Kms from the Municipal corporation limits of Vijayawada and claimed the same as exempt while filing the return of income as the said land was agricultural land. The A.O. was of the view that since the land is located within the radius of 8 kms. from Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the land is exigible to wealth tax but not exempt as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O. assessed the value of the land of Rs. 68,06,008/- to the wealth tax as urban land. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee went on appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his order (i.e.) the decision of Hon'ble TAT Cochin in the case of Meena Jacob V WTO (2007) reported in 14 SOT 486 is distinguishable on facts from that of appellant. Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to hold that the land is not agricultural land. Hence, I am of the view that the land is exempt as per then extant provisions of Wealth Tax Act. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition of value of land (i.e.) Rs. 68,06,008/- for Wealth Tax purposes." 4. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The revenue's case is that the land in question was urban land and not exempt u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing supported by the pass books submitted by the assessee, wherein, it was classified as dry agricultural lands. On agricultural land, no construction is permissible as per existing laws unless the agricultural land is converted into non agricultural lands. There was no evidence brought out by the revenue on record to show that the lands were converted as non agricultural lands on which construction of the building is permissible. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CWT(A) and the same is upheld. The revenue's appeals on this ground for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed." 5. Since facts of the assessee's case are identical, respectfully following the view taken by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
