Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

Madras Sheet Glass Works Private ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 19 December, 2018

               आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी'  यायपीठ, चे नई

                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                             'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
 ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,  या यक सद य एवं  ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम%

         BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
             SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


            धन-कर अपील सं./WTA Nos.28, 31, 32 & 33/Chny/2017
       नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09

M/s Madras Sheet Glass Works             The Deputy Commissioner of
                 Private Limited,   v.   Income Tax,
No.67-A, Village Street,                 Corporate Ward - IV(1)
Thiruvttriyur, Chennai - 600 019.        (earlier ITO Company Ward IV(1)
                                         Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AAACM 5340 G
       (अपीलाथ,/Appellant)                     (-.यथ,/Respondent)


        अपीलाथ, क/ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate
        -.यथ, क/ ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Hari Govind, JCIT

        सन
         ु वाई क/ तार ख / Date of Hearing         : 04.12.2018
        घोषणा क/ तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018



                              आदे श /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

All the four appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 10.03.2017.

2 I.T.A. Nos.28, 31, 32 & 33/Chny/17

2. Even though the assessment years involved are 2006-07, 2007- 08 and 2008-09, the assessee has filed two appeals for assessment year 2006-07. Therefore, one appeal relating to assessment year 2006-07, i.e. WTA No.31/Chny/2017 is a duplication. Hence, WTA No.31/Chny/2017 is dismissed as duplication of appeal for assessment year 2006-07.

3. Now coming to other appeals, Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is the land in question is not fit for construction. Referring to the information uploaded by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in their website, a copy of which is filed by the assessee before this Tribunal, the Ld.counsel submitted that the subject land was classified as "Special and Hazardous". Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the said land is not fit for construction. Referring to Section 2(ea)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the Ld.counsel submitted that the land in which the construction is not permissible, cannot be considered to be an urban land. This fact was not considered by both the authorities below. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

4. We heard Shri Hari Govind, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Assessing Officer as well as the CWT (Appeals) found that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.28, 31, 32 & 33/Chny/17 land in question is an urban land. Accordingly, it was assessed for wealth-tax. Now, the assessee claims before this Tribunal that the land in question is not fit for construction of any building. Therefore, in view of Section 2(ea)(b) of the W.T. Act, the said land cannot be considered to be urban land, hence the wealth-tax cannot be levied. The Ld.counsel for the assessee has also placed his reliance on the classification said to be made by the CMDA which was uploaded in their website. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re- examined by the Assessing Officer and find out whether the land in question is hazardous land as claimed by the assessee and unfit for construction.

5. In view of the factual situation, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and bring on record whether the land in question is hazardous and unfit for construction and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6. In the result, WTA No.31/Chny/2017 is dismissed. However, WTA Nos.28, 32 and 33/Chny/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes. 4 I.T.A. Nos.28, 31, 32 & 33/Chny/17

Order pronounced in the court on 19th December, 2018 at Chennai.

       sd/-                                          sd/-
    (एस. जयरामन)                                (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
   (S. Jayaraman)                                 (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member                 या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
6दनांक/Dated, the 19th December, 2018.
Kri.


आदे श क/ - त7ल8प अ9े8षत/Copy to:
   1. अपीलाथ,/Appellant            2. -.यथ,/Respondent
   3. आयकर आयु:त (अपील)/CWT(A)-8, Chennai
   4. Principal CWT, Chennai-4, Chennai
   5. 8वभागीय - त न ध/DR          6. गाड( फाईल/GF.