9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the AO completed the wealth tax assessment vide his order dated 30/12/2011 u/s 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and made the addition correctly - Decided against assessee - WTA Nos. 58 & 59/Hyd/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue by : Shri Nilanjan Dey ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J. M. Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against a common order of CWT(A) 11, Hyderabad, dated 16/11/2016 for the AYs 2004-05 and 2006. 2. On perusal of record, we find that there is a delay of 11 days in filing these appeals before us. To this effect, the assessee filed an affidavit affirmin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the lands held by the assessee are agricultural lands and used for agricultural purposes, however, no evidence has been filed before us to establish that the lands used for agricultural purposes. The assessee has neither filed any evidence before the revenue authorities nor before us to show that the lands, which are in dispute, are used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the assessee that the lands are used for agricultural purposes. For the sake of clarity, the relevant findings of the CIT(A) in upholding the orders of AO are extracted below: 6.4 To understand whether the asset in question is taxable u/s.2(ea) in the light of the retrospective am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emonstrable use for agricultural purposes. It cannot be matter of inference or conjecture with reference to extant Government records. The asset in question should have been evidently and manifestly put to productive use. This is an equal, simultaneous, and binding requirement as denoted by employing the word 'and' as an intervening conjunction. If any reference in Government records as agricultural land by itself were to confer any presumption as to the actual user of such land, it would not have been necessary to enact the subsequent phrase 'and used for agricultural purposes.' As is well known every word and phrase in the statute carries its meaning and no redundancy what so ever can be attributed to any expression. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her in the context of Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act or Section 2(e)(1 )(i) of the Wealth Tax Act would no longer be directly useful. These decisions were rendered by taking multiple factors into cognizance to determine whether a piece of land was agricultural in nature or not in view of the fact that the term 'agricultural land' was nowhere defined. In the earlier scenario, therefore, considerations of whether land was actually was under cultivation was not necessarily conclusive, if the land could have been cultivated, or if the owner's intent to cultivate the land Gould be gleaned from the accompanying circumstances. In contrast, in the amended Section 2(ea) the only relevant attribute attached to land categorized as agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
