Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Raminder Kaur, Jalandhar vs Assessee on 23 May, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
W.T.A. Nos. 12 to 14(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2004-05 to 2006-07
PAN:AJDPK8743N
Mrs. Raminder Kaur Vs. The Dy. Commr. of Wealth Tax,
W/o Late Major Parkash Singh, Range-III, Jalandhar.
Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
W.T.A. Nos. 15 to 17(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2004-05 to 2006-07
PAN:AIZPS1064M
M/s Alep Parkash Singh Vs. The Wealth Tax Officer,
Jalandhar. Ward III(1), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
W.T.A. Nos. 18 to 20(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2004-05 to 2006-07
PAN:AGFPB6710Q
Ms. Nirmita Bilimoria, Vs. The Wealth Tax Officer,
Jalandhar. Ward III(3), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
W.T.A. Nos. 21 to 23(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2004-05 to 2006-07
PAN:AIMPP4015A
Ms. Jyoti Parkash Vs. The Wealth Tax Officer,
D/o Late Major Parkash Singh, Ward III(1), Jalandhar.
Jalandhar.
2 WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/202011
Assessment years: 2004-05 to 2006-07
(Appellant) (Respondent)
W.T.A. Nos. 24 to 26(Asr)/2011
Assessment years:2004-05 to 2006-07
PAN:BBHPS1128J
Ms. Nirlep Sohal, Vs. The Wealth Tax Officer,
Jalandhar. Ward Nakodar,, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Sh. Ravish Sud, Advocate
Respondent by: Sh. Sh. Umesh Takyar, DR
Date of hearing: 20/05/2016
Date of pronouncement: 23/05/2016
ORDER
PER BENCH:
These fifteen appeals filed by different assessees against different orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar, each dated
02.08.2011 & 27.7.2011 for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 respectively. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessees have raised common grounds in all the appeals. However, the common grounds of appeal raised in WTA No.12 are reproduced as under:
"1. That the order of the Ld. CWT(Appeals), Jalandhar is against the law and facts of the case.3 WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/202011
Assessment years: 2004-05 to 2006-07
2. That the Ld. CWT(Appeals) had gravely erred in law in failing to appreciate that 'agricultural lands', whether situated within the 'Urban agglomeration' or within the notified area limits would not falll within the 'Scope & Domain' of the terminology 'Asset" as contemplated u/s 2(ea)(v) of the W.T.Act, 1957.
3. That the Ld. CWT(Appeals) gravely erred in law in failing to appreciate that levy of Wealth Tax on 'agricultural lands' as per the 'Constitution of India', is specifically excluded from Entry 86 of Union List-1, Seventh Schedule, and thereupon is regulated by Entry 95 of the said Union List-1, Seventh Schedule (under the residuary powers), and therein further erred in failing to appreciate that in case the Parliament had intended vide the Finance Act, 1992 (wherein for the first time the said term 'Urban land" was incorporated as an asset), to levy Wealth tax on 'agricultural lands' ( as was so done by the Finance Act, 1969, when for the first time 'agricultural land' was brought within the ambit of levy of Wealth tax), then there would have been a specific 'excluding proviso' giving effect to non-applicability of Wealth Tax on 'Agricultural lands' situated in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, because due to applicability of Article 370 in the said State the power to 'legislate' as regards any item specific in Entry 97 of the Union List-1, Seventh Schedule (pertaining to residuary powers), is vested only with the State Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the Parliament stands divested of the said powers as regards the same.
4. That the CWT (Appeals) while going by the definition of the terminology 'Urban Land' and therein holding that the same includes 'agricultural lands', therein gravely erred in law in by failing to take cognizance of the settled position of law as had been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Curt, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Entry 86 & Entry 97 as is so contemplated in the Union List of the 'Constitution of India' and the Circular of the CBDT substantiating the assessee's contention.
5. That the CWT(Appeals) gravely erred in law that vide the Finance Act, 1992, the then Finance Minister had specifically brought only non-productive assets within the ambit of Wealth-tax Act,1957 and by no stretch of imagination agricultural land i.e. land on in which agricultural operations are being carried on, whether 4 WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/202011 Assessment years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 situated within or outside the urban areas could be held in our Indian economy as a 'non-productive assts'.
6. That without prejudice to the aforesaid settled position of law, the ld. CWT (Appeals) still further erred in not appreciating that as 'agriculture' is a "BUSINESS', (which fact stands substantiated by the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court), therefore, the 'agricultural land' owned by the assessee on the relevant 'Valuation date' and were being used by her for the BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE, thereupon as per section 2(ea) (i)(3) of the Weath tax Act, 1957 the same would remain specifically excluded from the definition of 'asset' as contemplated by Sec. 2(ea) of the said Act.
7. That without prejudice to the aforesaid the Ld. CWT (Appeals) had erred in not appreciating that even otherwise as the lands owned by the assessee were 'agricultural lands"
and were subject to self-cultivation by the assessee, thereupon, as per the provisions of section 91, 92 & 93 of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, no construction was permissible on the said lands. Therefore, as per 'Explanatioon (b)' (now 'Explanation 1(b)' w.e.f. 01.04.2000) to section 2(ea), the said lands automatically stood excluded from the definition of the term 'Urban land'.
8. That the Ld. CWT (Appeals) had erred in not quashing Notice u/s 17, as the 'reasons to believe' did not exist.
9. That the CWT(Appeals) had erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. wherein the latter had not accepted the wealth-tax return so filed by the assessee."
3. Earlier, all these appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.05.2012 following the judgment, dated 16.12.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Gurdip Singh Nagra vs. CWT and Others', in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 30267/2011 (from the judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 in WTA No.38/2010 of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court). Now, the same have been 5 WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/202011 Assessment years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 recalled by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order, dated 20.05.2016 for fresh adjudication, in view of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, in section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993.
4. The facts of the case are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.
5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that post the passing of the Tribunal order dated 22.05.2012, vide amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, has been amended with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993, whereby the agricultural land will not form part of 'assets' due to which agricultural land is no longer liable to Wealth Tax with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993. He further stated that the assessment years in appeals are 2004-05 to 2006-07 and therefore, the retrospective amendment brought in after the passing of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 22.05.201, are squarely covered by the aforesaid amendment.
6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned orders.
7. We have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record. The legislature has, by virtue of the Finance Act, 2013, introduced the amendment to section 2(ea)(v) with 6 WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/202011 Assessment years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 retrospective effect from 01.04.1993. This amendment by way of Explanation 1(b)(ii) - section 2(ea)(v), is as follows (relevant extract) "but does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the government and used for agricultural purposes...." The appeals pending before us pertain to assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07.
8. In view of the above, all the appeals of the assessees are squarely covered by the aforesaid retrospective amendment brought in by the legislature in the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, agricultural lands are no longer 'assets' (within the amendment of section 2(ea)(v) of the Act), because of the retrospective amendment brought in. As such, they are not exigible to Wealth Tax Act.
9. For the above reasons, the action of the AO in including the value of the assessees lands in their net wealth, is reversed. Accordingly, the orders passed by the ld. CWT(A), confirming this action are also reversed.
10. In the result, all the fifteen appeals of different five assessees in WTA Nos. 12 to 26(Asr)/2011 are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/ 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/SKR/
Dated: 23/05/2016
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessees:
2. The DCWT, Range-III, Jalandhar
3. The CWT(A)/WTO Ward-1/WTO -III/WTO, Jalandhar
4. The CWT, Jalandhar
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.