9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned 58 acres and 28 guntas of lands at Akkelenahalli -Mallenahalli village, had not included the value of this land in her returns of net wealth. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings and issued notice u/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act,1957 (in short 'the Act') for re-opening the assessments in this case. In response thereto, the assessee requested the AO to treat the original returns of net wealth as filed in compliance to the notice u/s 17 of the Act. The assessee also requested the AO to provide her with copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening her case and the same was provided to her by the AO. The assessee filed her objections in respect of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 17 of the Act and the AO disposed off the same by way of passing a speaking order thereon. 2.2 In her submissions, the assessee had stated that the said lands situated at Akkelenahalli-Mallenahalli villages does not come under the ambit of the definition of wealth as per Explanation 1(b) to section 2(ea) of the Act which defines 'urban land', as it is situated 11 KMs away from BBMP limits. The AO, after considering the assessee's submissions conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department and appeal u/s.260A is pending before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 3.3 The assessee has also raised the following almost identical grounds in its cross objections in both cases, except for figures mentioned therein and we therefore extract hereunder the grounds of appeal raised in the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax [Appeals], in so far as it is against the Respondent / Cross Objector is opposed to law, facts, equity, and weight of evidence and circumstances of the case. 2. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth- tax [Appeals] in so far as regard to the relief granted to the Respondent/ Cross - objector, is just and proper and does not require any modifications, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Wealth- tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate, that the order of assessment of wealth is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014. It was contended that the aforesaid substitution of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is clarificatory in nature and if the said lands are aerially measured, then the same would come within the BBMP limits and consequently fall within the meaning of 'urban land' as per Explanation 1(b) to section 2(ea) of the Act. It is submitted that in view of the above, the AO was correct in treating the said lands as 'urban land' and consequently the said lands are liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee and be exigible to wealth-tax. It was also submitted that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. R. Seetharam in WTA No.16 to 29/Bang/2014 dated 31.03.2015 relied upon by the assessee has not been accepted and the Departmental appeal under section 260A of the Act is pending before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 4.2.1 The Id.AR for the assessee placed on record of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the cases, inter alia, of M. R. Padmavathy Trust and M. R. Janakiram (HUF) in WTA No.24/Bang/2017 & WTA No.29/Bang/2017 dated 17.08.2018 for assessment year 2007-08 and submitted that both the issues rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument put forth, the ld. DR had submitted that the distance has to be considered as the crow flies i.e the distance has to be calculated aerially and not by road. In this context, the Id. DR relied on the provisions of clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Incometax Act, 1961 as substituted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014; which he submitted were to be given retrospective operation as they are only clarificatory in nature. We have given careful consideration to the submissions put forth by the Id. DR and are of the considered view that it is not tenable for the following reasons - Firstly, the assessment year in the two appeals before us is assessment year 2007-08 and 2009-10 and the law in operation at that point in time is to be considered, unless retrospective operation is specifically provided in the statute. In the cases on hand, for assessment year 2007-08, the said provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been substituted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 and therefore, are applicable only for and from assessment year 2014-15 onwards; and therefore operate prospectively and cannot be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h proposition has been negative by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.R.Seetharam in ITA No.1654/Bang/2012(supra). In the case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh (229 CTR 82) it was held that 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 years 2007-08 and 2009-10 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, this ground and argument raised by Revenue is dismissed. 4.5 Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the cases of M. R. Padmavathy Trust and M. R. Janakiram (HUF) for assessment year 2007-08 in WTA No.24/Bang/2017 & WTA No.29/Bang/2017 dated 17.08.2018 and of another co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri M.R.Seetharam in ITA No.1654/Bang/2012, we hold that the said lands in question are not 'urban lands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
