9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The said lands in question are not 'urban lands' but 'agricultural lands' and hence not exigible to wealth-tax. - WTA Nos.07 And 08/Bang/2019, C.O. Nos. 36 And 37/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT ORDER PER BENCH These are two appeals by Revenue directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-6. Benga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid 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 for Assessment Years 2007-08 and order dated 05.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.3 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment dated 31/03/2015 for Assessment Year 2007-08 and dated 05.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru, who allowed the assessees' appeals on merits vide separate orders dated 22/11/2018, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Bengaluru in the case of M. R. Padmavathy Trust and M R. Janakiram (HUF) for assessment year 2007-08 in WTA No.242/Bang/2017 and WTA No.29/Bang/2017 dated 17/08/2018 respectively. 3.1 Revenue, being aggrieved by the separate orders of the CIT(A) dated 22/11/2018 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 in the case on hand, has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee too had filed cross objections challenging the validity of re-opening the assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, learned Commissioner of Wealth- tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that alleged reasons recorded for reopening the assessment of the Respondent does not constitute reasons to believe, and are utmost reasons suspect and hence, the notice u/s. 17 is bad in law on the facts and re circumstances of the case. 6. Without Prejudice, the Respondent / Cross objector objects that the order of assessment is bad in law as the learned assessing officer erred in not disposing t-e objections of the respondent in respect of the reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s. 17 vide a separate speaking order before concluding the assessment on the facts and the circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the Respondent / Cross objector denies itself liable to be assessed over and above the returned net wealth by the respondent / cross objector of ₹ 4,80,41,300/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Respondent / Cross Objector craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to at: alter, delete, substitute or modify any of the grounds urged above. 9. In the view of the above and other such grounds that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not 'urban lands' exigible to wealth-tax. It is submitted that in view of the Tribunal's order (supra), these issues have been decided in favour of the assessee and against revenue. 4.2.2 In respect of the reliance placed by the Id. DR on the substituted provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Incometax Act, 1961, vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 and clarificatory in nature, the Id. 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 years 2007-08 and 2009-10 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 IncomeWTA 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. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date, then it is impermissible for the authority to consider the same retrospectively, for earlier years. 4.4.2 Substitution has the effect of deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In common parlance, the word 'substitute' would ordinarily mean 'to put one in place of another person or thing' or 'to replace' or 'to exchange'. Substitution of a provision 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 whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
