Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4041 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date
17-08-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
11-04-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI N.V.VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W TA NO. 24 / BANG/2 0 1 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) AND W TA NO. 29 /BANG/2 017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BENGALURU. VS. APPELLANT 1. M/S. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST, GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560054. PAN: AAATM 3493 K 2. M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF), GOKULA HOUSE , GOKULA MATHEKRE, BENGALURU - 560054. RESPONDENT PAN: AAEHM 0685 F *** C.O.NO.43/BANG/2018 (IN W TA NO. 24 /BANG/2 017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) (BY M/S. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST) AND C.O.NO.39/ BANG/2018 (IN W TA NO. 29 /BANG/2 017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) (BY M.R.JANAKIRAM, HUF) REVENUE BY : SHRI C.H.SUNDAR RAO, CIT(DR). ASSESSEES BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /08/2018 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 6. BENGALURU, BOTH W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 10 DATED 14/07/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED CROSS - OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A). SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 BOTH THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES FILED RETURNS OF NET WEALTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON 31/3/2008. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES, WHO WERE OWNERS OF LANDS AT AKKELENAHAL LI MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, HAD NOT INCLUDED THE VALUE OF THIS LAND IN THEIR RETURNS OF NET WEALTH. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 17 OF THE WEALTH - TAX ACT,1957 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) FOR RE - OPENING THE ASS ESSMENTS IN BOTH THESE CASES. IN RESPONSE THERETO, BOTH THE ASSESSEES REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS 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 TH E REASONS RECORDED FOR RE - OPENING THEIR CASES AND THE SAME WERE PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 17 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DISPOSED OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER THEREON. 2.2 IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEES HAD STATED THAT THE SAID LANDS SITUATED AT AKKELENAHALLI MALLENAHALLI VILLAGES DOES NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE DEFINITION OF WEALTH AS PER EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 2( EA) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES URBAN LAND , AS IT IS SITUATED 11 KMS AWAY FROM BBMP LIMITS. THE ASSESSEES ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN WTA NOS.16 TO 29/B ANG/2014 DATED 31/03/2015 IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER VIEW OF THE AO THAT BIAPPA IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS CONCLUDED THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE BBMP LI MITS IN STRAIGHT LINE METHOD AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE SAID LAND FALLS W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 10 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEWLY CREATED ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, I.E. BIAPPA. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT BIAPPA IS AN AUTHORITY AKIN TO 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 MALLENA HALLI VILLAGES UNDER THE AMBIT OF WEALTH AND ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE LANDS , BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT S WERE ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED U/S 16(3) R.W.S . 17 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDERS DATED 31/3/2015. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT BOTH DATED 31/03/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, BOTH THE AFORESAID ASSESSEES FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) - 6, BENGALURU, WHO ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ON MERITS VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 14/07/2017 , FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, BENGALURU IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN WTA NO.16/BANG/2014 AND WTA NO.21/BANG/2014 DATED 31/03/2015. 3.1 REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 14/07/201 7 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN THE CASES OF THE AFORESAID TWO ASSESSEES , HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEES TOO HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF RE - OPENING THE ASSESSMENTS OF WEALTH. 3.2 REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH CASES AND WE, THEREFORE, EXTRACT HEREUNDER THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CASE OF M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST : - W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 10 3.3 T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING ALMOST IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ITS CROSS O BJECTIONS IN BOTH CASES, EXCEPT FOR FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN AND WE THEREFORE EXTRACT HEREUNDER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE CASE OF M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST: - W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 10 REVENUE S APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NOS.24 & 29/BANG/2017 4.0 WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE. 5. GROUND NOS.1, 4 AND 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR THEREON. 6. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 6.1 THE LD.CIT - DR FOR REVENUE SUBMITTED , WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND RAISED AT SL.NO.2 (SUPRA) , THAT THE CALCULAT I ON OF THE DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM BBMP LIMITS HAS TO BE THE DISTANCE MEASURED AS THE CROW FLIES, I.E. THAT THE AERIAL DISTANCE HAS TO BE CALCULATED AND NOT W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 10 THE DISTANCE AS PER ROAD. I N SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, 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)(II I )(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND IF THE SAID LANDS ARE AERIALLY MEASURED, THEN THE SAME WOULD COME WITHIN THE BBMP LIMITS AND CONSEQUENTLY 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 WAS CORRECT IN TREATING THE SAID LANDS AS URBAN LAND AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID LANDS ARE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEES AND BE EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH - TAX. 6.2.1 THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD OF THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES, INTER ALIA, BOTH THESE ASSESSEES BEFORE US IN WTA NOS.16 TO 29/BANG/2014 & CO NOS.86 TO 97/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 THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH 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 B EING SO, THESE LANDS ARE NOT URBAN LANDS EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH - TAX. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF TH E TRIBUNAL S ORDER ( SUPRA ) , THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE. 6.2.2 IN RESPECT OF THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SUB - CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 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 AR E NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THESE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS (SUPRA) ARE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 ONWARDS AND CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. THE LAW APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ALONE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPLIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - CLAUSE W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 10 (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 EFFECT TO PROSPECTIVELY ONLY AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. 6.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. 6.3.2 THE ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUN D NO.3 (SUPRA) IS THAT SINCE SAID LAND IS SITUATED IN BIAPPA WHICH IS AN AUTHORITY , THE SAID LAND IS URBAN LAND AND THEREFORE, 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 THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID TWO ASSESSEES CASES, ALONG WITH OTHER CO - OWNERS IN COMMON ORDER IN WTA NO.16 TO 29/BANG/2014 AND C.O.NOS.86 TO 97/BANG/2014 DATED 31/03/2015, WHEREIN THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ANOTHER C O - 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 HELD AT PARAS 8 TO 9.1 THE REOF THAT BIAPPA DOES NOT QUALIF Y TO BE AN AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, THE SAID LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND N OT URBAN LAND OR CAPITAL ASSETS AS CANVASSED BY REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.4.1 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 (SUPRA), THE LD. DR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE CROW FLIES I.E THE D ISTANCE HAS TO BE CALCULATED AERIALLY AND NOT BY ROAD. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 AS SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2013 W.E.F. 01/04/2014 ; WHICH HE SUBMITTE D WERE TO BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS THEY ARE ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION 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 W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO APPEALS BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE LAW IN OPERATION AT THAT POINT IN TIME IS TO BE CONSIDERED, UNLESS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IS SPECI FIC ALLY PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE. IN THE CASES ON HAND, FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007 - 08, THE SAID PROVISIONS 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. 01/04/2014 AND THEREFORE, ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 ONWARDS ; AND THEREFORE OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY AND CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE IN THE CASE VATIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. (367 ITR 466) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN THE APPLICABILITY OF A SECTION FROM A PA RTICULAR DATE, THEN IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE SAME RETROSPECTIVELY, FOR EARLIER YEARS. 6.4.2 SUBSTITUTION HAS THE EFFECT OF DELETING THE OLD RULE AND MAKING THE NEW RULE OPERATIVE. IN COMMON PARLANCE, THE WORD SUBS TITUTE WOULD ORDINARILY MEAN TO PUT ONE IN PLACE OF ANOTHER PERSON OR THING OR TO REPLACE OR TO EXCHANGE . SUBSTITUTION OF A PROVISION 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 PROVISION/RULE IS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE IN ITS PLACE. IT IS WELL SETTLED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT EVERY STATUTE IS PROSPECTIVE UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY OR BY NECE SSARY IMPLICATION MADE TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IF THE AMENDMENT ACT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISION SHALL COME INTO FORCE FROM THE DATE THE AMENDMENT COMES INTO FORCE, THEN THE SAID PROVISION IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE A ND IT WOU LD NOT BE OPEN TO ANY C OURT TO GIVE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION TO SUCH PROVISION. ULTIMATELY, THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE IS THE SOLE GUIDE FOR DECIDING WHETHER PROVISIONS ARE PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR FOR REVENUE, THAT THE PROVISION SUB - CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS SUBSTITUTED BY W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 10 THE FINANCE ACT 2013 W.E.F 01/04/2014 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATU RE AND NEEDS TO BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IN CONSIDERING THE DISTANCE TO BE CALCULATED AERIALLY ; CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 6.4. 3 WE ALSO NOTE ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED A LETTER FROM THE ANNESHWARA GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE CONFIRMING THAT THE LAND DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY CORPORATION OR MUNICIPALITY AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, DEVARAHALLI MEASURING THE DISTANCE FROM BBMP LIMITS. PER CONTRA, REVENUE S CASE IS THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE SITUATED WITHIN BIAPPA WHICH HAS AN AUTHORITY AS PER THE DEFINITION OF ASSET WHICH PROPOSITION HAS BEEN NEGATIVE BY A CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.R.SEETHARAM IN ITA NO.1654/BA NG/2012(SUPRA). 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 DISTANCE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULD YIELD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MEASURING DISTANCE IN TERMS OF APPROACH RO A DS RATHER THAN BY STRAIGHT LINE OR HORIZONTAL PLAN E OR AS PER CROWS FLIGHT . THUS, IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE CALCULATED BY ROAD AND NOT AS TH E CROW FLIES OR BY STRAIGHT LINE. IN THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6.5 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OW N 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 QUESTION ARE NOT URBAN L AND S BUT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HENCE NOT EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH - TAX. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUE S APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. W TA 24 & 29/BANG/17 & CO 43 & 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 10 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH REVENUE S APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ARE DISMISSED. ASSESSEE S C ROSS OBJECTIONS (CO NOS.39 & 43/BANG /2018) : 8. IN THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS ( C O ) BOTH ASSESSEE S HAVE CHALLENGED THE AO S 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 RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR CROSS OBJECTION S BECOME ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE, NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE S APPEALS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ARE DISMISSED AND THE ASSESSEES C.OS ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2018 S D/ - SD/ - ( N.V.VASUDEVAN ) ( JASON P BO AZ ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 17 / 0 8 /201 8 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
Mehul