9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' within the meaning of rule 1(i), Para. B, Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and, consequently, no additional wealth-tax should be levied for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77?" The assessee is an individual. The Wealth-tax Officer, after making the assessment, passed a rectification order under section 35 of the Act for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 to levy additional wealth-tax on the agricultural lands on the ground that they are urban immovable properties and subject to additional wealth-tax under rule 1(i), Para-B, Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the orders of the Assessing Officer. The Appellate Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on record. Learned counsel was not able to point out any material on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal, to come to the conclusion that the agricultural lands should be regarded as business premises. However, his endeavour before this court was that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and the assessee should be granted an opportunity to produce materials before the Tribunal that the agricultural lands were business premises within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act. According to him, Kurichi town is an industrial area and the lands situate in the town should be regarded as industrial premises. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there are two courses open to the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which runs as under : "'business premises' means any building or land or part of such building or land, or any right in building or land or part thereof, owned by the assessee and used throughout the previous year for the purposes of his business or profession, and includes any building used for the purpose of residence of persons employed in the business or any building used for the welfare of such persons, as a hospital, creche, school, canteen, library, recreational centre, shelter, rest-room or lunch-room, but does not include any premises in the nature of a guest-house." It is not disputed by learned counsel for the assessee that the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at the finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which agricultural operations are carried on as a normal agriculturist, and the surplus of the agricultural produce is sold. In all three instances stated above, the fact that agricultural operations were carried on would show that there was an employment of capital and labour. In first two instances, there can be no difficulty in holding that the agricultural lands were owned and used for the business, but in the third instance, unless the assessee establishes that the land was used as business asset, the agricultural land, per se, cannot be treated as business premises. There may be instances of the lands lying fallow. It is not clear to which category the assessee's land belonged. No doubt, it is true that the instances quoted above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was not considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Even if a supplementary statement of case is called for, since there were no materials produced by the assessee before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal, the position of the assessee would not become better by calling for a supplementary statement of the case. Hence, we decline the request of learned counsel for the assessee to call for a supplementary statement of the case. The alternative request of learned counsel for the assessee is that this court should decline to answer the question referred to us and direct the Appellate Tribunal to rehear the appeal permitting the assessee to adduce fresh evidence before the Appellate Tribunal. This course of option suggested by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference stage. The burden is squarely on the assessee to establish that the agricultural lands are business premises and having failed to produce the necessary materials before the Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the assessee to ask for a second chance to adduce new materials before the Tribunal in the reference stage. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the second course of action suggested by learned counsel for the assessee. Since the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at the finding that the lands of the assessee were business premises within the meaning of rule 1(i), Para B, Part I, of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act without any material, we hold that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in law. Consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
