Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Vep Parkash , Jalandhar vs Assessee on 2 August, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
W.T.A. Nos.04 to 11 (Asr)/2012
Assessment year:1999-2000 to 2006-07
PAN :AAUPK1869P
Sh.Joginder Kumar vs. Wealth Tax Officer,
Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar. Ward 1(2), Jalandhar.
W.T.A. Nos.08 and 09 (Asr)/2013
Assessment year:2007-08 & 2008-09
PAN :AAUPK1869P
Sh.Joginder Kumar vs. Wealth Tax Officer,
Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar. Ward 1(2), Jalandhar.
W.T.A. Nos.01 to 03 (Asr)/2012
Assessment year:1999-2000 to 2001-02
PAN :AAOPP0442P
Sh.Ved Parkash vs. Wealth Tax Officer,
C/o M/s. Jiwan Singh Ram Lal, Ward 1(3), Jalandhar.
Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
W.T.A. Nos.10 (Asr)/2013
Assessment year:2002-03
PAN :AAOPP0442P
Sh.Ved Parkash vs. Wealth Tax Officer,
C/o M/s. Jiwan Singh Ram Lal, Ward 1(3), Jalandhar.
Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
2 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
Appellant by:Sh.Gunjit Syal, ITP
Respondent by:Sh.Amrik Singh, DR
Date of hearing: 02/08/2013
Date of pronouncement:12/08/2013
ORDER
PER BENCH ;
These 14 appeals of two different assessees arise from the orders of the CWT(A), Jalandhar for different assessment years, as mentioned hereinbelow are having identical facts and therefore, we take up all the 14 appeals of two different assessees for different assessment years by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience:
S.No. W.T.A.No. A.Y. Name of the CWT (A) Date of party order 1 to 9 04 to 11 1999- Joginder Jalandhar 10.09.2012 (Asr)/2012 2000 to Kumar & 2006-07 12.10.2012 10 08 & 09 2007-08 -do- -do- 22.01.2013 (Asr)/2013 & 2008- & 09 08.02.2013 13 01 to 03 1999- Sh.Ved -do- 23.02.2013 (Asr)/2012 2000 to Parkash 2001-02
14. 10(Asr0/2013 2002-03 -do- -do- 31.01.2013 3 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
2. The identical grounds taken in WTA Nos 04 to 11(Asr)/2012 except variation in amounts, are reproduced as under:
"1. The Ld. CWT (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
2. That the authority below has wrongly adopted the rate of agriculture land @ Rs.2,72,400/- per acre at village Dhogri.
3. That the value of agriculture land at village Surakhpur at Rs.11,20,000/- per acre has wrongly been upheld.
4. That the matter cannot be referred to the valuation officer after completion of assessment.
5. That the written submission of the appellant has not been considered in proper context.
6. That the valuation determined by the authority has been challenged.
7. That the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
8. That interest u/s 17B has wrongly been charged.
9. That order is against law and facts of the case.
10. That proper opportunity should have been allowed.
11. That any other ground pressed at the time of hearing."
3. In WTA Nos. 8 & 9(Asr)/2013, the assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal exception variation in amounts:
"1. That the Ld. CWT(A) has wrongly confirmed the rate of agriculture land at village Dhogri @ Rs.7.50 lacs per acre.
2. That the written submission of the appellant has not been considered in proper context.
3. That the valuation determined by the authority has been challenged.
4. That the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, 1957 are challenged.
5. That interest u/s 17B has wrongly been charged.
6. That order is against law and facts of the case.
7. That proper opportunity should have been allowed.
8. That any other ground pressed at the time of hearing."4 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
4. In WTA Nos. 01 to 03 & 10(Asr)/2012 & 13 (in the case of Sh. Ved Parkash), the assessee has raised identical grounds except variation in amounts, which are reproduced as under:
"1. The Ld. CWT (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
2. That the authority below has wrongly adopted the rate of agriculture land @ Rs.2,72,400/- per acre at village Dhogri.
3. That the value of agriculture land at village Surakhpur at Rs.77,23,500/- per acre has wrongly been upheld.
4. That the matter cannot be referred to the valuation officer after completion of assessment.
5. That the written submission of the appellant has not been considered in proper context.
6. That the valuation determined by the authority has been challenged.
7. That the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
8. That interest u/s 17B has wrongly been charged.
9. That order is against law and facts of the case.
10. That proper opportunity should have been allowed.
11. That any other ground pressed at the time of hearing."
5. First of all, we take up appeal of the assessee in the case of Sh.Joginder Kumar, Jalandhar in WTA No.04(Asr)/2012 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and our decision hereinbelow shall be applicable identically in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove.
6. The brief facts in the grounds of appeal of the assessee are that the assessee owned 21 acres of land in Village Dhogri, Distt. Jalandhar and 6 acres in Village Surakhpur, Tehsil Nazafgarh, Delhi which were within 8 5 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc. Kms from respective municipal limits. The cases were reopened and in response to notice u/s 17 of W.T.Act, a return of wealth declaring at Rs.5,21,400/- was filed. The agricultural land belonging to assessee at these two villages were claimed exempt. In reply to notice u/s 16(4)/16(2) of W.T.Act, in the written submissions made the assessee submitted that no doubt the land at both these places were situated within 8 KM of the municipal limits of Jalandhar and Delhi. Yet it is pointed out and the land in issue was agriculture land on which the agriculture activity were carried on. It was claimed as exempt under Wealth Tax Act in view of the Madras High Court judgment in the case of CWT vs. E. Ddayakumar ( 284 ITR 511). The assessee further submitted that the agriculture land on which the agriculture activity is carried on was also out of the definition of urban land. Hence such agriculture land is exempt from Wealth Tax, in view of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hari Singh (1980) 123 ITR 558 (P&H). It was further submitted that the value of agriculture land situated at Village Dhogri as per revenue record is Rs.272382.96 per acre, as per the certificate of Patwari. As regard agriculture land situated in village Surakhpur, Delhi the land was purchased in the year 1993-94 amounting to Rs.8,05,000/-. Due to remoteness of area the price was not increased rather it was decreased in the 6 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc. year under consideration. The AO after considering the reply did not find himself in agreement with the assessee's arguments holding as under:
"I have gone through the reply of the assessee and I do not agree with him that agriculture land is exempted from wealth-tax. The ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Tara Singh S/o Jai Singh vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jalandhar have catgegorically held that the agriculture land which falls within 8Km from the Municipal Limit and is located in a town with a population of more than 10000 the same would fall in the definition of urban land and would be included in the value of assets for the purpose of wealth tax. For arriving at this conclusion the Tribunal has drawn a support from the order of the Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Charanpal Singh Mann and Jograj Singh, College Road Sangrur vs. ACWT, Circle, Patiala decided on 8.9.2003 in WTA No.102 of 2003. Following the above decision, I hold that agriculture land owned by the assessee in village Dhogri and vill. Surakhpur, Delhi is an urban asset for the purpose of wealth tax."
6.1 As regards valuation of the land also, he did not agree with the assessee and after discussing his reasons in details in the assessment order has taken the value of land at village Dhogri at Rs. 5 lacs per area as against Rs.2,72,000/- as per the certificate of Patwari and at Rs.12.56 lacs in respect of land at Vill. Surakhpur, The Nazafgarh, Delhi and a total addition was made at Rs.1,80,36,000/- for A.Y.1999-2000.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the report of the Authorised Representative before him upheld the action of the A.O. vide para 7 of his order and made the valuation for the wealth tax purposes as per para 9 & 10 of his order.
7 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
8. The Ld. counsel for the Mr. Gunjit Singh, ITP and Sh.Amrik Chand, Ld. DR conceded that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs.Wealth Tax Officer, in W.T.A. Nos.15 to 18(Asr)/2013 and others , dated 23.07.2013, which is bunch of 42 appeals of 12 different assessees and both the representatives prayed to dispose of this appeal in view of the said decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra).
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We find that the issue in appeal before us is identical to the facts in the appeal in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra), which has been decided by us vide our order dated 23.07.2013 and therefore, our order therein shall be identically applicable in the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the decision in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra), is reproduced for the sake of convenience as under:
"6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It was brought to our notice by both the parties present before us that there is an amendment in section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 where clause (b) to Explanation (1) has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01.04.2014 but the words in bold letters below have been substituted with 8 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc. retrospective effect i.e. from 01.04.1993. The same is reproduced, for the sake of convenience as under:
"(b) "urban land" means land situate-
(i) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not more than ten thousand; or
ii) in any area within the distance, measured aerially,-
(1) not being more than two kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than ten lakh, But does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of ten years from the date of its acquisition by him.
Explanation- For the purposes of clause (b) of Explanation-1, "population' means the population according to the last preceding 9 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc. census of which the relevant figures have been published before the date of valuation."
7. From the perusal of the said substitution of the explanation by the Finance Act, 2013, as mentioned hereinabove, it is evident that the Urban Land for the purposes of definition of section 2(ea)(v) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 does not include for the Wealth Tax purposes - firstly, the land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Govt. and the land which is used for agricultural purposes, secondly the land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the year in which such land is situated, thirdly the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority, fourthly any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him and fifthly any land held by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of 10 years from the date of its acquisition by him. Therefore, in view of the amended provisions with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993 in the Wealth Tax Act, as reproduced hereinabove, whether the said land which has been claimed as exempt by the assessee in the return of wealth has complied with all the amended provisions or not has to be examined. Therefore, in pursuance of amendment through Finance Act, 2013, as mentioned hereinabove, which amendment is clarificatory in nature, we find it approprirate to set aside the matter to the file of the W.T.O. to examine the documents lead by the assessee as required in the amended provisions mentioned hereinabove and decide the issue accordingly afresh in view of the said amendment in Explanation-1 to section 2(ea) with retrospective effect 01.04.1993. The A.O. is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. Thus, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No.15(Asr)/2013 for the assessment year 2002-03 is allowed for statistical purposes.
8. Since the facts in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove are identical to the facts in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, in WTA No.15(Asr)/2013 for the A.Y. 2002-03, therefore, our decision hereinabove in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh in WTA No.15(Asr)/2013 is identically applicable in all the present appeals mentioned hereinabove. Accordingly, all the appeals of Wealth Tax are allowed for statistical purposes.
10 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
9. In the result, the appeals of all the assessees in WTA Nos. 11 to 52(Asr)/2013 are allowed for statistical purposes".
10. As mentioned hereinabove, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra) and accordingly our order in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra), reproduced hereinabove is identically application in the present appeal. Accordingly, all the grounds of the assessee in the present appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Thus, appeal in WTA No.04(Asr)2012 is allowed for statistical purposes.
11. Since the facts in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove are identical to the facts in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra) and above mentioned appeal in the case of Sh.Joginder Kumar in WTA No.04(Asr)/2012, therefore, our decision hereinabove in the case of Bawa Yadwinder Singh, Muktsar and others vs. WTO (supra) and in the case of Sh.Joginder Kumar (supra) is identically applicable in all the present appeals mentioned hereinabove. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessees in WTA Nos. 5 to 11(Asr)/2012, 8 & 9 (ASR)/2013, 1 to 03 (Asr)/2012 and 10(Asr)/2013 are allowed for statistical purposes.
11 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
12. In the result all the appeals in WTA Nos. 4 to 11(Asr)/2012, 8 & 9 (ASR)/2013 in the case aof Sh. Joginder Kumar and in WTA Nos 1 to 03 (Asr)/2012 & 10(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sh. Ved Parkash are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 12th August, 2013
/SKR/
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessees. Sh.Joginder Kumar, ii) Sh.Ved Parkash, Jalandhar.
2. The WTA 1(2) & 1(3)
3. The CIT(A), JLR
4. The CIT, JLR
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.
True copy By order (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench: Amritsar.