9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in reopening of assessment under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. 3. The learned Assessing Officer's and the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in considering the net wealth of Rs. 9,84,48,238 on account of agriculture land acquired by the assessee in 2008. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the land was acquired by the assessee is agricultural land and specifically exempt from the wealth-tax. The learned Assessing Officer had ignored the copies of purchase deed in which it is clearly mentioned that the land is agricultural land. In spite of our submission that the same land was used for the agricultural purpose only, the learned Assessing Officer had denied the assessee's contention and consider the net wealth on the basis of particular mind set without considering the assessee's submission and the same was also confirm by the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. The worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had ignored the additional evidence in the form of girdawari certificate obtained by the Revenue authorities, in which it was mentioned that the land was used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then also, one need not pay any wealth-tax on such exempt asset. Further as per section 2(ea) of the Act, urban land covered under the definition of asset but there are some exceptions also. The exceptions are as follows : (a) On which construction not permissible (b) On which building constructed with approval (c) Held for industrial purpose for 2 years from the date of acquisition (d) Held as stock-in-trade for 10 years from the date of acquisition (e) Classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government 'and used for agricultural purposes'. Hence the assessee is not liable to pay wealth-tax on the said land as the same covered under agricultural land and the exception to section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. The copies of purchase deed of land are attached as per annexure 1 herewith for your ready reference." 5. The Assessing Officer however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and treated the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,84,48,238 as net wealth liable to wealth-tax by observing in para. 4.1 of the Wealth-tax assessment order as under : "4.1. The above submission has been considered and analyzed with respect to the provisions of the We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as concealment of wealth are initiated separately." 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and submitted as under : "(1) Apropos to point No. 1 of grounds of appeal, we state that this ground is the pivot ground which other grounds of appeal in this memorandum of appeal revolves. The impugned order is contrary to the law and very facts of the case and was made in haste, ignoring all the submissions of the appellant through his learned authorised representative This ground of appeal does not require any specific elaboration and all the submissions of the other grounds of appeal should be considered as for this particular ground also. (2) Apropos to point No. 2 of grounds of appeal, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in holding the reopening of assessment under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (here after referred to as the Act). In the instant case, the reopening of the case was due to change of opinion of the Assessing Officer, which itself is bad in law and should be quashed on this ground alone. We request your goodself to provide one more opportunity to submit elaborate subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is used for agricultural purpose clearly stand established and there is no reasons as to why the same should be treated as an asset under the Wealth-tax Act. The learned Assessing Officer stated in his order that for getting covered in exclusion of urban land specified in section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the land is not only required to be classified in the Government records as agricultural land but it should also be used for agricultural purposes. The learned Assessing Officer had stated in his order that the land is not used for agricultural purpose and hence the same does not get covered under the exclusions of urban land laid down in section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. By supplying additional evidence in the form of the girdwari certificate obtained from the Revenue authorities, the assessee-company has discharged the onus to prove that the land had been used for agricultural purposes and request for submission of additional evidence is being made separately. The learned Assessing Officer had also stated in his order that the assessee-company has claimed long-term capital losses from the sale of the same agricultural land and hence the justification of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from this purported agricultural land. (vi) The appellant had claimed long-term capital losses from the sale of the same agricultural land. 5.3.2 The appellant has filed following submissions : (i) The land of the appellant company in question is classified as agricultural land in record of the Government, as shown in the land registered documents and girdawari certificate obtained from revenue authorities, submitted as additional evidence. 5.3.3 It is seen from the assessment order and submission filed by the appellant that only issue to be adjudicated is whether the agricultural land purchased in 2008 is to be included in the net wealth of the company. In the girdavari certificate submitted by the appellant, it is seen that the land owned by the company in village Khanpur, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala at Khasra Nos. 713, 714 and 715, 600, 601, 602 and 925, 514, 515, 612, 663, 664 and 665 related to the year 2013 and has not shown agricultural crop either in rabi or kharif season. Thus, it is clear that the appellant has not submitted any evidence to prove that this land was ever use for agricultural purposes. Further, this fact is also collaborated by the audit repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hon'ble apex court in the case of CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC). 10. In his rejoinder the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that even if the agricultural income was not shown by the assessee, it does not mean that the agricultural activity was not carried out on the land in question, particularly when in the revenue record it was clearly mentioned that the crops of paddy and wheat were grown on the said land. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 12. In the present case it is noticed that the term "assets" covered under the Wealth-tax Act is defined under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act in the exception to the said section 2(ea), urban land which is classified as agricultural and in the record of the Government and used for agricultural purposes does not came under the category of urban land for the purposes of definition of the assets on which wealth-tax is to be levied. In the present case the revenue record, i. e., khasra, girdwari copy of which is placed at page Nos. 5 to 10 of the assessee's compilation reveals that on the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis. 16. Before parting we may mention that the case relied by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative, i. e., CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC) is distinguishable on facts because in the said case it has been held that it is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of "assets", but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth-tax and that one of the objects of the exemption seemed to be to encourage cultivation or actual utilization of land for agricultural purposes. If there is neither anything in its condition, nor anything in evidence to indicate the intention at its owners or possessors, so as to connect it with an agricultural purpose, the land could not be "agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. 17. However, in the present case copies of khasra, girdawari placed at page Nos. 5 to 10 of the assessee's paper book clearly reveals that the crops, i. e., paddy and wheat were cultivated on the land therefore the case relied by the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
