9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e area of corporation and in the heart of the city. Secondly the assessee himself offered these lands as non-agricultural lands (in prior years). Thirdly as per provision under s. 2(e) of WT Act all lands are treated as assets." 3. The assessee filed appeal before the AAC. The AAC adopted the same reasons and confirmed the rejection of the claim. The assessee is now in further appeal before us. 4. We have heard the parties. We may state at the outset that in the asst. yr. 1979-80 with which we are concerned, the agricultural land was not totally exempt from inclusion in net wealth. Under s. 5(1) (iva) r/w s. 5(1A) of the WT Act, 1957 the exemption was to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000, in respect of value of agricultural land together wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been used for purpose of agricultural only and further that it continued to be assessed to land revenue. The third circumstance is that the assessee to had not made this claim in the earlier assessment year. Not making of similar claim in prior years does not also prevent the assessee from making similar claim in subsequent year. Principle of re judicata does not apply to wealth-tax assessments. The submission on behalf of assessee is that he came to know of his right to make the claim because of Bombay High Court in CWT vs. H.T. Mungale (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 30 : (1984) 145 ITR 208 (Bom) which had been delivered on 16th July, 1982 and as such mere fact that claim was not made in earlier years would not preclude him to make the claim this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstance to indicate that it cannot be properly regarded as agricultural land." 8. The above principle applies to the facts of the case. On behalf of Department strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT vs. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards), Paigah 1976 CTR (SC) 404 : (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC). This decision has been exhaustively considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of H.V. Mungale and it is after consideration of said decision that the above principle was enunciated. Consequently, the decision of the Supreme Court does not assist the Department. 9. We set aside the order of the AAC and direct the WTO to treat the land in question as agricultural land within the meaning of s. 5(iva) of the WT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
