9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing the distance is of significance which would yield to the principle of measuring distance in terms of approach roads rather than by straight line or horizontal plane or as per crows flight’. Thus, it is clear to us that for the period under consideration, in the appeals before us i.e. assessment year 2007-08 the distance has to be calculated by road and not as the crow flies or by straight line. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, ground No.2 raised Revenue is dismissed. The said lands in question are not ‘urban lands’ but ‘agricultural lands’ and hence not exigible to wealth-tax. Consequently, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. See assessee’s own case[2015 (11) TMI 951 - ITAT BANGLORE]. - Decided in favour of assessee - WTA No.24/Bang/2017, WTA No.29/Bang/2017, C.O.No.43/Bang/2018 And C.O.No.39/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2018 - SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR). For The Assessees : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate ORDER Per BENCH : These are two appeals by Revenue di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pality or Cantonment Board, which has all the power assigned to any local administrative authority and therefore should also be considered to be Municipality for the purposes of tax administration. In that view of the matter the AO brought the aforesaid lands situated at Akkelenahalli Mallenahalli villages under the ambit of wealth and adopting the guideline value of the lands, brought the same to tax under the Act. The assessments were accordingly completed u/s 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Act vide orders dated 31/3/2015. 2.3 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment both dated 31/03/2015 for assessment year 2007-08, both the aforesaid assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru, who allowed the assessees appeals on merits vide separate orders dated 14/07/2017, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Bengaluru in the assessee s own cases for assessment year 2005-06 in WTA No.16/Bang/2014 and WTA No.21/Bang/2014 dated 31/03/2015. 3.1 Revenue, being aggrieved by the separate orders of the CIT(A) dated 14/07/2017 for assessment year 2007-08 in the cases of the aforesaid two assessees, has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessees too have filed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, without obtaining the sanction for issue of notice from the Joint Commissioner of Wealth tax and consequently the order of assessment of wealth passed on a invalid notice is liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that the notice for re-opening itself is bad in law on the ground that the notice does not correctly indicate whether the Assessing officer proposes to assess or reassess the wealth of the Respondent/Cross Objector on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice the Respondent/Cross Objector denies itself liable to be assessed over and above the retuned net wealth by the Respondent/Cross-objector of ₹ 1,24,39,600/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Respondent/Cross objector craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute or delete any of the grounds of urged above at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. In the view of the above and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Respondent/Cross Objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 and clarificatory in nature, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Revenue contentions are not acceptable as these substituted provisions (supra) are applicable from assessment year 2014-15 onwards and cannot be applied retrospectively. The law applicable for assessment year 2007-08 alone has to be considered and applied. According to the ld. AR, the provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act,1961, has been substituted and not amended and therefore, as held by various courts, substituted provisions are to be given effect to prospectively only and cannot be considered to be clarificatory in nature. 6.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. 6.3.2 The issue raised by Revenue in ground No.3 (supra) is that since said land is situated in BIAPPA which is an authority , the said land is urban land and therefore, a capital asset exigible to wealth-tax. We find that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... results in the repeal thereof and its replacement by the new provisions. The process of substitution consists of two steps; the first being that the existing provision/rule would cease to exist and the new provision/rule is brought into existence in its place. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute is prospective unless it is expressly OR by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. If the amendment Act expressly states that that the substituted provision shall come into force from the date the amendment comes into force, then the said provision is prospective in nature and it would not be open to any Court to give retrospective operation to such provision. Ultimately, the intention of Legislature is the sole guide for deciding whether provisions are prospective OR retrospective. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the contention raised by the ld. DR for revenue, that the provision sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is substituted by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f 01/04/2014 is clarificatory in nature and needs to be given retrospective operation in considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
