Sri M.R. Kodandaram, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Central Circle - 1(2) , Bengaluru

CO 118/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1926 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA NOS. A.Y. APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT 45/BANG/2018 SHRI M.R. JAYARAM PAN: ABPPJ 6898J 46/BANG/2018 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE. SHRI M.R. ANANDARAM, PAN: ABMPA3135A 47/BANG/2018 SHRI M.R. JANAKIRAM, PAN: ABPPJ6889N 48/BANG/2018 SHRI M.R. KODANDARAM PAN: ADIPK 7939H GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560 054. CO NOS. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR VS. RESPONDENT 117/BANG/2018 (IN WTA 47/B/2018) 2009-10 SHRI M.R. JANAKIRAM, PAN: ABPPJ6889N THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE. 118/BANG/2018 (IN WTA 48/B/2018) SHRI M.R. KODANDARAM PAN: ADIPK 7939H 122/BANG/2018 (IN WTA 45/B/2018) SHRI M.R. JAYARAM PAN: ABPPJ 6898J 123/BANG/2018 (IN WTA 46/B/2018) SHRI M.R. ANANDARAM, PAN: ABMPA3135A GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560 054. REVENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALU RU. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 11 & W TA NO. 49/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE. VS. SHRI M.R. SEETHARAM, GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560 054. PAN: AGDPS 5886M APP ELL ANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALU RU. ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SUMAN LUNKAR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 15.11 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .11 .201 8 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE APPEALS BY REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-6. BENGALURU, DATED 26.2.2018 IN THE CASE OF M.R. SEETHARAMAN IN RELATION TO AY 2007 -08 AND ORDERS ALL DATED 28.2.2018 BY CIT(A)-6 BENGALURU IN THE CASE OF M.R.JAYARAM, M.R. ANADRAM, M.R.JANAKIRAM AND M.R. KODANDARAM, ALL IN RELATION TO AY 2009-10. THE ASSESSEES, M.R.JAYARAM, M.R. ANADRAM , M.R.JANAKIRAM AND M.R. KODANARAM IN RELATION TO AY 2009-10 HAVE F ILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE C OMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE THEM OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 11 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE A RE AS UNDER:- 2.1 THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES FILED RETURNS OF NET WEALTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS NOTI CED BY THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER (WTO OR AO) THAT THE ASSESSEES, WHO WER E OWNERS OF LANDS AT AKKELENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, HAD NOT INCLUD ED THE VALUE OF THIS LAND IN THEIR RETURNS OF NET WEALTH. CONSEQUENTLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 17 OF T HE WEALTH-TAX ACT,1957 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES FOR THE AYS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEES REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RE TURNS OF NET WEALTH AS FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 17 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEES ALSO REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE THEM WITH COPY OF THE R EASONS RECORDED FOR RE- OPENING THEIR CASES AND THE SAME WERE PROVIDED TO T HEM BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 17 OF THE ACT. 2.2 IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEES HAD STATED THE SAID LANDS SITUATED AT AKKELENAHALLIMALLENAHALLI VILLAGES DOE S NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF WEALTH AS PER EXPLANATIO N 1(B) TO SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES URBAN LAND, AS IT IS SITUA TED 11 KMS AWAY FROM BBMP LIMITS. THE ASSESSEES ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CON VERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND SO LONG AS THE LANDS CONTINUE TO BE AGRICULTUR AL LAND. THE ASSESSEES ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, B ANGALORE BENCHES IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN CONNECTION WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT BIAPPA (WIT HIN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE SITUATE) IS A LOCAL AUTH ORITY. THE AO, AFTER WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 11 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS CONCLUDED TH E ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE BBMP LIMITS IN STRAIGHT LINE METHOD AND FURTHER HELD THA T THE SAID LAND FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEWLY CREATED ADMINISTRATIV E AUTHORITY, I.E. BIAPPA. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT BIAPPA IS AN AUTHORITY AKIN T O A MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD, WHICH HAS ALL THE POWER ASSIGNED TO ANY LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED TO BE MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX ADMINISTRATION . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE AO BROUGHT THE AFORESAID LANDS SITUATED AT AKKELENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI VILLAGES UNDER THE AMBIT OF WEALTH AND ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE LANDS, BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX UNDER T HE ACT. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENTS, THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A)-6, BENGALURU, WHO A LLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH OF ITAT, BENGALURU IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 IN WTA NO.28 & 29/BANG/2014 DATED 31/03/2015. 3.1 REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASES OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES, HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEES TOO (EXCEPT ASSESSEE M.R.S EETHARAM IN WTA NO.49/BANG/2018) HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS CHALLE NGING THE VALIDITY OF RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENTS OF WEALTH. 3.2 REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST IDENTICAL GR OUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS AND THE COMMON GROUND RAISED SO RAISED READ S THUS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO WEALTH TAX LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE URBAN LANDS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE SITUATED WITHIN 8 WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 11 KMS. OF THE MUNICPAL AUTHORITY AND THE SAID LANDS H AVING BEEN CONVERTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAN DS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT WHICH IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA? 3.3 AS ALREADY STATED, THE ASSESSES HAVE IN TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS U/S.17 OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE LD.DR FOR REVENUE SUBMITTED, THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM BBMP LIMITS HAS TO BE THE DI STANCE MEASURED AS THE CROW FLIES, I.E. THAT THE AERIAL DISTANCE HAS T O BE CALCULATED AND NOT THE DISTANCE AS PER ROAD. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITI ON, THE LD.DR CITED THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 2013 W.E.F. 01/04/2014. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND IF THE SAID LANDS ARE A ERIALLY MEASURED, THEN THE SAME WOULD COME WITHIN THE BBMP LIMITS AND CONSEQUE NTLY FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF URBAN LAND AS PER EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO W AS CORRECT IN TREATING THE SAID LANDS AS URBAN LAND AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAI D LANDS ARE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEES AND BE EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH-TAX. 4.2 THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON R ECORD THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF ALL THESE ASSESSE ES BEFORE US IN WTA NOS.86 TO 92/BANG/2014 & CO NOS.16 TO 29/BANG/2014 AT 31/3/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 11 HAS HELD THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND DO NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1 (B) TO SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT. THAT BEING SO, THESE LANDS ARE NOT URBAN LAN DS EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH-TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORD ER (SUPRA), THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGA INST REVENUE. 4.3 IN RESPECT OF THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE L D. DR ON THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SEC TION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 01/04/2014 AND CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE CONTENTIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THESE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS (SUP RA) ARE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ONWARDS AND CANNOT BE APPLI ED RETROSPECTIVELY. THE LAW APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALON E HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPLIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, T HE PROVISIONS OF SUB- CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961, HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED AND NOT AMENDED AND THEREFORE, AS HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS, SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS ARE TO BE GIVEN EFFE CT TO PROSPECTIVELY ONLY AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NAT URE. 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. 5.2 ON THE ISSUE THAT SINCE SAID LAND IS SITUATED IN BIAPPA WHICH IS AN AUTHORITY, THE SAID LAND IS URBAN LAND AND THE REFORE, A CAPITAL ASSET EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH-TAX, WE FIND THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID TWO ASSESSEES CASES, ALONG WITH OTHER C O-OWNERS IN COMMON WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 11 ORDER IN WTA NO.86 TO 97/BANG/2014 AND C.O.NOS.16 T O 29/BANG/2014 DATED 31/03/2015, WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH REL IED ON THE ORDER OF ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS SHRI M.R.SEETHARAM IN ITA NO.1654/BANG/2012 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HEL D AT PARAS 8 TO 9.1 THEREOF THAT BIAPPA DOES NOT QUALIFY TO BE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, THE SAID LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LAND S AND NOT URBAN LAND OR CAPITAL ASSETS AS CANVASSED BY REVENUE. CONSEQUENT LY, GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5.3 AS REGARDS THE MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE, TH E CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT DISTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE CROW FLIE S I.E., THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE CALCULATED AERIALLY AND NOT BY ROAD. IN THIS CO NTEXT, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SEC TION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F . 01/04/2014; WHICH HE SUBMITTED WERE TO BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS THEY ARE ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CON SIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. DR AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS NOT TENABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO APPEALS BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AN D THE LAW IN OPERATION AT THAT POINT IN TIME IS TO BE CONSIDERED , UNLESS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE. IN THE CASES ON HAND, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & AY 2009-10 THE SAID PROVI SIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 01/04/2 014 AND THEREFORE, ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-1 5 ONWARDS; AND THEREFORE OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY AND CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 11 LTD. (367 ITR 466) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HA S GIVEN THE APPLICABILITY OF A SECTION FROM A PARTICULAR DATE, THEN IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE SAME RETROSPECTIVELY, FOR EARLIER YEARS. 5.4 SUBSTITUTION HAS THE EFFECT OF DELETING THE OLD RULE AND MAKING THE NEW RULE OPERATIVE. IN COMMON PARLANCE, THE WORD SUBSTITUTE WOULD ORDINARILY MEAN TO PUT ONE IN PLACE OF ANOTHER PER SON OR THING OR TO REPLACE OR TO EXCHANGE. SUBSTITUTION OF A PROVI SION RESULTS IN THE REPEAL THEREOF AND ITS REPLACEMENT BY THE NEW PROVISIONS. THE PROCESS OF SUBSTITUTION CONSISTS OF TWO STEPS; THE FIRST BEING THAT THE EXISTING PROVISION/RULE WOULD CEASE TO EXIST AND THE NEW PRO VISION/RULE IS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE IN ITS PLACE. IT IS WELL SETTLED RUL E OF CONSTRUCTION THAT EVERY STATUTE IS PROSPECTIVE UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION MADE TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IF THE AMENDMEN T ACT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISION SHALL COME INT O FORCE FROM THE DATE THE AMENDMENT COMES INTO FORCE, THEN THE SAID PROVISION IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO ANY COURT TO GIV E RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION TO SUCH PROVISION. ULTIMATELY, THE INTENTION OF LE GISLATURE IS THE SOLE GUIDE FOR DECIDING WHETHER PROVISIONS ARE PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR FOR REVENUE, THAT T HE PROVISION SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2013 W.E.F 01/04/201 4 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND NEEDS TO BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATIO N IN CONSIDERING THE DISTANCE TO BE CALCULATED AERIALLY; CANNOT BE ACCEP TED. WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 11 5.5 WE ALSO NOTE ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER FROM THE ANNESHWARA GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE CONFIRMING THAT TH E LAND DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY CORPORATION OR MUNICI PALITY AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, DEVARAHALLI MEASU RING THE DISTANCE FROM BBMP LIMITS. PER CONTRA, REVENUES CASE IS THAT TH E SAID LANDS ARE SITUATED WITHIN BIAPPA WHICH HAS AN AUTHORITY AS PER THE DEF INITION OF ASSET WHICH PROPOSITION HAS BEEN NEGATIVE BY A CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.R.SEETHARAM IN ITA NO.1654/BANG/2012(SUPR A). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SATINDER PAL SINGH (229 CTR 82) IT WAS HELD THAT THE RECKONING OF URBANIZATION AS A FACTOR FOR PRESCRIBING THE DISTAN CE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULD YIELD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MEASURING DISTANCE IN TERMS OF APPROACH ROADS RATHER THAN BY STRAIGHT LINE OR HORIZONTAL PL ANE OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT. THUS, IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT FOR THE PERIOD UNDER C ONSIDERATION, IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2009-10 TH E DISTANCE HAS TO BE CALCULATED BY ROAD AND NOT AS THE CROW FLIES OR BY STRAIGHT LINE. IN THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. 5.6. AS REGARDS CONVERSION OF LAND FROM AGRICULTU RAL USE TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E (WTA NO.16 TO 29/BANG/2014 & CO 86 TO 97/BANG/2014) DATED 31.3.20 15 DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 7.3 TO 7.3.10 AND HELD THAT THOU GH THE SUBJECT LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, CULTIVATI ON OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES TILL THE DATE OF SALE CONTINU ED UNABATED AND AS SUCH, THE LAND SHOULD BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. TH ESE FINDINGS WILL EQUALLY APPLY FOR THE AYS IN THESE APPEALS AS THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION REMAINED THE SAME IN THESE AYS ALSO. WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 11 5.7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN WTA NOS.16 TO 29/BANG/2014 & CO NOS.86 TO 97/BANG/2014 AT 31/3/2015 AND OF ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI M.R.SEETHARAM IN ITA NO.1654/BANG/2012, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID LANDS IN Q UESTION ARE NOT URBAN LANDS BUT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HENCE NOT EXIGI BLE TO WEALTH-TAX. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 6.1 IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS (CO) THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE AOS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 17 OF THE ACT FOR RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD ON MERITS THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE NOT URBAN LAND AND THEREFORE, NOT EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH-TAX, THE ISSUE ON JURISDICTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR CROSS OBJECTIONS BECOME ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE, NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSE D AND THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / WTA NOS.45 TO 49/BANG/2018 & CO NOS.117,118,122,123/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. APP ELL ANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.