9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion. As held by us, requirement of permission for construction would not make construction on the land impermissible. This being the position, as on which date such requirement is being tested would be of no consequence. In our opinion, therefore, question (a) raised by Assessee, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. For the purposes of enabling the Assessee to appear before the Tribunal only press question No.(b) and (c) in relation to the respective Wealth Tax Appeals, the impugned common judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Appeals are restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration - WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2016 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 415 OF 2016 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2016 WITH WEALTH TAX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with building constructed on it, was includible in net wealth, as 'urban land' u/s. 2(ea)(v) of the Act? 4. These questions arise in relation to two plots of land namely land bearing Survey No. 159 of village Kalipatthur, Kancheepuram District, Near Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai (which has been referred to as Mahabalipuram plot ), ad-measuring 3500 sq.mtrs. This land was acquired by the Assessee on 21st April, 2006. The second property is land, ad-measuring 2.33 acres along with a building admeasuring 5600 sq.ft. situated at Sri. Perumbudur, Chennai (which has been referred to as Sri Perumbudur property ). This land was acquired by the Assessee on 8th December, 2006. 5. The Wealth Tax Department was of the opinion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Tribunal. 8. In relation to ground (i), Counsel for the Assessee, urged that the Tribunal has committed serious error in interpreting relevant statutory provisions. He contended that undisputedly in the present case, no construction could have been carried out on the lands in question without the permission of the Competent Authority. No such permission was granted at the relevant time. The Tribunal was, therefore, not correct in accepting the Revenue' contention that the lands in question were urban land, includible in the Assessee's net wealth. 9. With respect of grounds No.(ii) and (iii), Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in not deciding these issues, though specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette. But does not include land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him [or any land held by the assessee as sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission for construction is always regulated through statutory provisions. Unless the prescribed authority such as Municipality or local authority, approves building plan and grants permission for construction, no construction can be put up on any land. Such a regulatory mechanism may also have categorical restrictions or divisions, such as, in certain areas, only limited type of development may be permitted. These, controls or regulatory mechanism cannot be equated with construction of a building not being permissible on the land in question. The Tribunal was correct in recording that Assessee had not brought any such prohibition in law to the notice of the Tribunal. It is well accepted principal that restriction and prohibition are two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not give rise to any substantial question of law, 15. With respect of questions (b) and (c), however, we are of the opinion that Tribunal should consider these questions and pass a fresh order. This is so since though raised, the Tribunal has not considered these issues. As noted, question No.(b) arises in Appeal No. 418 and 415 of 2016, the Assessee would be allowed to argue question (b) in relation to those appeals. Question (c) arises in all the Appeals but with respect of Sri Perumbudur land only. 16. In the circumstances, for the purposes of enabling the Assessee to appear before the Tribunal only press question No.(b) and (c) in relation to the respective Wealth Tax Appeals, the impugned common judgment of the Tribunal is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
