Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Raminder Kaur, Jalandhar vs Assessee on 22 May, 2012
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. 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)
2
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.
(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 Sood, Advocate
Respondent By:Sh. Laxman Singh, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing :22/05/2012
Date of pronouncement:22/05/2012
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 3 heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessees have raised common grounds of appeal 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.
2. That the Ld. CWT(Appeals) had gravely erred in law in failing to appreciate that 'agricultural lands', whether situated within the 'Urban aglomeration' 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 4 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 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) 5 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. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.
4. At the time of hearing both the parties agreed that the issue in dispute has already been adjudicated and finally decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurdip Singh Nagra vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax , Jalandhar and others in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 30267/2011, arise from the judgment and order dated 06/04/2011 in WTA No.38/2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which the assessee has attached at page 3 - 4 of the small paper book containing pages 1 to 13.
5. In addition to the said admitted position, the Ld. counsel for the assesse also stated that the assessee has raised ground No.3, in which the assessee has challenged the vires as regards to the levy of Wealth Tax on 6 agricultural lands, as contemplated u/s 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. He further requested the Bench that the issue raised by the assessee may also be adjudicated upon.
6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR, stated that the issue in dispute has finally been settled and decided in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide its order dated 16.12.2011 in the presence of Ld. counsel for the assessee and the Special Leave Petition filed by the assessee has been dismissed, then there is no question of raising any new issue by the assessee at this stage, before this Bench. He further requested that the appeals filed by the assessees may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Charanpal Singh Mann and Jagraj Singh in W.T.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2003 dated 08.09.2003, in which the Hon'ble High Court, has held that agricultural land which falls within Municipal Urban land and chargeable to Wealth Tax and exactly similar issue raised in the case of Gurdip Singh Nagra vs. CWT in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 30267/2011 (from the judgment and order dated 06/04/2011 in WTA 7 No.38/2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has dismissed the S.L.P. filed by Sh. Gurdip Singh Nagra and upheld the order of the Jurisdictional High Court, vide its consolidated order dated 16.12.2011. The issue in dispute in the present appeals is exactly similar, which has attained finality. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 16.12.2011, the present appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed.
8. As regards the other issue raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee regarding challenging the vires of the levy of Wealth Tax on agricultural land, as stood contemplated under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction/power to adjudicate regarding vires of levy of Wealth Tax on agricultural land, as stated by the assessee in ground No.3.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority on the issues in dispute raised by the assessees in the present appeals. Therefore, the present appeals are dismissed.
8
10. In the result, all the fifteen appeals of the assessees are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 22nd May, 2012
/SKR/
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. The Assessees:
2. The DCWT,Range-III/WTO, Ward III(1), Ward III(3) and WTO Nakodar.
3. The CIT(A), Jalandhar.
4. The CIT, Jalandhar.
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar True copy By Order (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench : Amritsar.