M/S EXRESS NEWSPAPERS P LD.,CHENNAI V. DCIT, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

WTA 7/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) treating 10.64 acres of their land as taxable wealth. The land was part of a 20.63-acre property acquired from the Trustees of Madras Club in 1950. The property included various buildings and was used for business purposes like dairy farming and horticulture. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the wealth tax assessment based on demolition agreements and subsequent transactions, viewing the land as 'vacant urban land'. The Tribunal found that the land was not vacant and was integral to the business operations, thus not liable for wealth tax under the specified exceptions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29958 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Wealth Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Other Referred Cases: M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CWT, Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavaila Cunnan Chetty's Charities v. CWT, Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavaila Cunnan Chetty's Charities, Sobharam Gambhirmal v. WTO, M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CWT, CIT vs Smt. M. Kalpagam
• Laws Referred To: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. CLEMENT RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA
• Keywords: Business income; Reassessment proceedings; Fair market value; Gift; Competent authority
• Section: 54; 22; 13; 20

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’\u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद\t क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धनकरअपीलसं./WTA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2006-07 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Express Estates, No.2, Club House Road, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002. v. The DCIT, Company Circle-II(1), Chennai. [PAN: AAACE 1702 G] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate (Virtual) for Shri P.J. Rishikesh, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-18, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CWT(A)”), Chennai, dated 05.06.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2004-05 to 2006-07. Since both the parties agreed that issues involved in all the assessment years are similar/identical; and therefore, we will take up the WTA No.7/Chny/2023 for AY 2004 which would determine the fate 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CWT(A) treating 10.64 acres of land, out of the immovable property admeasuring 20.63 acres, as by way of taxable wealth as 3. Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee company had acquired immovable property measuring 20.63 acres from the Trustees of Madras Club vide Sale Deed dated 24.01.1950, which was registered as Document No.56 of 1950 in the Off The said land admeasuring 20.63 acres had various buildings which were leased out or were utilized for business purposes by the assessee. Additionally, on the said land, the assessee was carrying on horticulture, running cattle sheds and had open green area, pavements, pathways, etc. It is noted that, in AY 2004 income of Rs.1.66 crores in relation to the buildings housed in the said land and had also offered business in Rs.9,00,539/-. Similar items of income are noted to have been declared and assessed to income WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 2 :: assessment years are similar/identical; and therefore, we will take up the WTA No.7/Chny/2023 for AY 2004-05 as the lead case and decision of which would determine the fate of other appeals. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CWT(A) treating 10.64 acres of land, out of the immovable property admeasuring 20.63 acres, as ‘vacant urban land’ and assessing the same by way of taxable wealth as on the valuation date. Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee company had acquired immovable property measuring 20.63 acres from the Trustees of Madras Club vide Sale Deed dated 24.01.1950, which was registered as Document No.56 of 1950 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Triplicane. The said land admeasuring 20.63 acres had various buildings which were leased out or were utilized for business purposes by the assessee. Additionally, on the said land, the assessee was carrying on horticulture, ning cattle sheds and had open green area, pavements, pathways, etc. It is noted that, in AY 2004-05, the assessee had inter alia income of Rs.1.66 crores in relation to the buildings housed in the said land and had also offered business income from the dairy farming of . Similar items of income are noted to have been declared and assessed to income-tax in AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07. TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd assessment years are similar/identical; and therefore, we will take up the 05 as the lead case and decision of The sole grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CWT(A) treating 10.64 acres of land, out of the immovable property and assessing the same Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee company had acquired immovable property measuring 20.63 acres from the Trustees of Madras Club vide Sale Deed dated 24.01.1950, which was registered as Registrar, Triplicane. The said land admeasuring 20.63 acres had various buildings which were leased out or were utilized for business purposes by the assessee. Additionally, on the said land, the assessee was carrying on horticulture, ning cattle sheds and had open green area, pavements, pathways, etc. declared rental income of Rs.1.66 crores in relation to the buildings housed in the said come from the dairy farming of . Similar items of income are noted to have been declared 4. The AO is noted to have issued reopening notice u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafte (3) years from AYs 2004 possession of information that, the assessee had entered into dated 29.07.2002 & 02.12.2003 with contractors, M/s. Ideal Enterprises M/s Classic Timbers for demolishing the buildings before 07.09.2002 or 23.12.2003 respectively. In the light of these agreements, the AO was of the view that, the property in question ought to be vacant after demolition, and therefore, he was of the beli land had escaped the levy of wealth tax. 5. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO is noted to have show-caused the assessee as to why the impugned immovable property should not be treated as wealth-tax. The assessee is noted to have brought to the AO’s notice that, though such demolition agreements were entered into didn’t ultimately happen, due to pending litigation in various forums viz., Writ Petition filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage (INTACH) before the Hon’ble disputes raised by various tenants by filing complaints/suits etc different forums/courts details of litigation pending before various forums through which it sought to demonstrate that the demolitions did WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 3 :: The AO is noted to have issued reopening notice u/s. 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) for the three (3) years from AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07. According to the AO, he was in possession of information that, the assessee had entered into dated 29.07.2002 & 02.12.2003 with contractors, M/s. Ideal Enterprises M/s Classic Timbers for demolishing the buildings before 07.09.2002 or respectively. In the light of these agreements, the AO was of the view that, the property in question ought to be vacant after demolition, and therefore, he was of the belief that such vacant urban land had escaped the levy of wealth tax. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO is noted to have caused the assessee as to why the impugned immovable property should not be treated as ‘vacant urban land’ and therefore be assessed to tax. The assessee is noted to have brought to the AO’s notice that, though such demolition agreements were entered into, but the demolition t ultimately happen, due to pending litigation in various forums viz., ion filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage (INTACH) before the Hon’ble Madras Court seeking stay on the same, the disputes raised by various tenants by filing complaints/suits etc different forums/courts. The assessee is noted to have filed complete details of litigation pending before various forums through which it sought to demonstrate that the demolitions didn’t take place and the immovable TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd The AO is noted to have issued reopening notice u/s. 17(1) of the r referred to as ‘the Act‘) for the three 07. According to the AO, he was in possession of information that, the assessee had entered into agreements dated 29.07.2002 & 02.12.2003 with contractors, M/s. Ideal Enterprises & M/s Classic Timbers for demolishing the buildings before 07.09.2002 or respectively. In the light of these agreements, the AO was of the view that, the property in question ought to be vacant after ef that such vacant urban In the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO is noted to have caused the assessee as to why the impugned immovable property erefore be assessed to tax. The assessee is noted to have brought to the AO’s notice that, but the demolition t ultimately happen, due to pending litigation in various forums viz., ion filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage seeking stay on the same, the disputes raised by various tenants by filing complaints/suits etc in have filed complete details of litigation pending before various forums through which it sought t take place and the immovable property comprising of buildings and land appurtenant thereto remained as it is i.e. status-quo 02.12.2003). Accordingly, it was urged that since the foundational premise of the reopening of wealth AO should not draw adverse inference based on the agreements ente for demolition, which ultimately were never acted upon. The assessee is noted to have also brought to the AO’s notice that, the entire land parcel of 20.63 acres was a contiguous one acquired in 1950 having several buildings on it, from which it deriv and business income from dairy farming, etc. Taking note of these facts, the AO is found to have accepted the assessee’s contention that, the buildings were in existence, but observed that these buildings occupied only land admeasuring 9.99 acres and that the remaining balance land i.e. 10.64 acres was vacant. The AO is noted to have observed that, the said remaining balance land comprised of built than 5% of the land area, and that it comprised Club, staff quarters, whose constructed space was only 21,302 sq.ft. The AO also disregarded the assessee’s submission that, there going on due to which demolition did assessee had sold the land parcel to its subsidiary company vide transfer deed dated 26.03.2007, which according to him, showed that the land was vacant. The AO also referred to one lease deed dated 18.01.2006 WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 4 :: property comprising of buildings and land appurtenant thereto remained quo ante (prior to agreements dated 29.07.2002 & . Accordingly, it was urged that since the foundational premise of the reopening of wealth-tax assessment was unjustified, the AO should not draw adverse inference based on the agreements ente for demolition, which ultimately were never acted upon. The assessee is noted to have also brought to the AO’s notice that, the entire land parcel of 20.63 acres was a contiguous one acquired in 1950 having several buildings on it, from which it derived income from letting out properties and business income from dairy farming, etc. Taking note of these facts, the AO is found to have accepted the assessee’s contention that, the buildings were in existence, but observed that these buildings occupied land admeasuring 9.99 acres and that the remaining balance land i.e. 10.64 acres was vacant. The AO is noted to have observed that, the said remaining balance land comprised of built-up area, which was less than 5% of the land area, and that it comprised area occupied by Madras Club, staff quarters, whose constructed space was only 21,302 sq.ft. The AO also disregarded the assessee’s submission that, there going on due to which demolition didn’t happen. According to AO, the ld the land parcel to its subsidiary company vide transfer deed dated 26.03.2007, which according to him, showed that the land was vacant. The AO also referred to one lease deed dated 18.01.2006 TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd property comprising of buildings and land appurtenant thereto remained dated 29.07.2002 & . Accordingly, it was urged that since the foundational tax assessment was unjustified, the AO should not draw adverse inference based on the agreements entered for demolition, which ultimately were never acted upon. The assessee is noted to have also brought to the AO’s notice that, the entire land parcel of 20.63 acres was a contiguous one acquired in 1950 having several ed income from letting out properties and business income from dairy farming, etc. Taking note of these facts, the AO is found to have accepted the assessee’s contention that, the buildings were in existence, but observed that these buildings occupied land admeasuring 9.99 acres and that the remaining balance land i.e. 10.64 acres was vacant. The AO is noted to have observed that, the up area, which was less area occupied by Madras Club, staff quarters, whose constructed space was only 21,302 sq.ft. The AO also disregarded the assessee’s submission that, there were litigations t happen. According to AO, the ld the land parcel to its subsidiary company vide transfer deed dated 26.03.2007, which according to him, showed that the land was vacant. The AO also referred to one lease deed dated 18.01.2006 where in the recitals, the impugned land parcel was mentioned According to the AO therefore, the land to the extent of 10.64 acres was separate and independent vacant urban land and accordingly treated it as taxable “asset” being urban land under Act. 6. Being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Ld. CWT(A) who, by his consolidated order dated 05.06.2023, confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. Since we have taken up the lead case as AY 2004-05, the concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is taken note as under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Wealth order dated 19.12.2011 section 16(3) r.w.s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (\"the Act\") as being beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment proce reassessment order, passed without there being any valid 'reason to believe' is beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment p section 17 of the Act and factually incorrect premise, are beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the CWT(A) erred on the facts and in law in upholding the stand/ case of the assessing of admeasuring 10.64 acres held by the appellant in Chennai as 'urban land' in terms of section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. 2.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in bifurcating and considering property with land a independent land, without appreciating that the same is part of WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 5 :: where in the recitals, the impugned land parcel was mentioned According to the AO therefore, the land to the extent of 10.64 acres was separate and independent vacant urban land and accordingly treated it as taxable “asset” being urban land under clause (v) of section 2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CWT(A) who, by his consolidated order dated 05.06.2023, confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. Since we have taken up the lead 05, the concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) ['CWT(A)'] erred in not quashing order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the assessing officer ('AO') under section 16(3) r.w.s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (\"the Act\") as being beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and consequent reassessment order, passed without there being any valid 'reason to believe' is beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated in contravention of provisions of section 17 of the Act and factually incorrect premise, are beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the CWT(A) erred on the facts and in law in upholding the stand/ case of the assessing officer in treating the property with land admeasuring 10.64 acres held by the appellant in Chennai as 'urban land' in terms of section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. 2.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in bifurcating and considering property with land admeasuring 10.64 acres as separate and independent land, without appreciating that the same is part of TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd where in the recitals, the impugned land parcel was mentioned as vacant. According to the AO therefore, the land to the extent of 10.64 acres was separate and independent vacant urban land and accordingly treated it as clause (v) of section 2(ea) of the by the aforesaid action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CWT(A) who, by his consolidated order dated 05.06.2023, confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. Since we have taken up the lead 05, the concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the tax (Appeals) ['CWT(A)'] erred in not quashing passed by the assessing officer ('AO') under section 16(3) r.w.s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (\"the Act\") as being 1.1 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that edings initiated by the AO and consequent reassessment order, passed without there being any valid 'reason to 1.2 That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that roceedings initiated in contravention of provisions of section 17 of the Act and factually incorrect premise, are beyond 2. That the CWT(A) erred on the facts and in law in upholding the stand/ ficer in treating the property with land admeasuring 10.64 acres held by the appellant in Chennai as 'urban 2.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in bifurcating and dmeasuring 10.64 acres as separate and independent land, without appreciating that the same is part of consolidated/ undivided land parcel/ property of 20.63 acres, which is occupied by building(s) and cannot be construed as vacant 'urban land' 2.2 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that any part of land which is vacant primarily constitutes lawns, car parking space, pavement area, sheds, horticulture area etc. and is thus land appurtenant to the buildings constructed on the l leased out or used for business purposes. Without Prejudice 3. That the CWT(A)erred on facts and in law in adopting guideline value (GLV) of Rs.5515 per sq ft. of Whites Road to compute value of alleged 'urban land' without appreciating that depict the fair market value of the property, especially in the facts of the case. 3.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on the facts and in law in not referring the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (\"DVO\")in terms of section 16A read with Rule 20 under Schedule III of the Act. 7. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted that the AO was unjustified in artificially bifurcating the contiguou acres into 9.99 acres and 10.64 acres. He brought to our notice that, the property in question admeasuring 20.63 acres was acquired from the trustees of Madras Club vide registered Sale Deed No.56 of 1950 dated 24.01.1950 and that th land had a common Survey No.315/1 which is evidenced from the Certificate issued by the Revenue Official, Tahsildar dated 21.08.1992, copy of which is found placed at the last page of paper book Annexure He showed us that, the entire land parcel was described by a single survey number and that the description column showed that the land was occupied with buildings. According to him, therefore the action of the WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 6 :: consolidated/ undivided land parcel/ property of 20.63 acres, which is occupied by building(s) and cannot be construed as vacant 'urban land' e CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that any part of land which is vacant primarily constitutes lawns, car parking space, pavement area, sheds, horticulture area etc. and is thus land appurtenant to the buildings constructed on the land which are leased out or used for business purposes. Without Prejudice 3. That the CWT(A)erred on facts and in law in adopting guideline value (GLV) of Rs.5515 per sq ft. of Whites Road to compute value of alleged 'urban land' without appreciating that the GLV does not conclusively depict the fair market value of the property, especially in the facts of the 3.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on the facts and in law in not referring the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (\"DVO\")in terms of ection 16A read with Rule 20 under Schedule III of the Act. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted that the AO was unjustified in artificially bifurcating the contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres into 9.99 acres and 10.64 acres. He brought to our notice that, the property in question admeasuring 20.63 acres was acquired from the trustees of Madras Club vide registered Sale Deed No.56 of 1950 dated 24.01.1950 and that the entire land admeasuring more than 20 acres of land had a common Survey No.315/1 which is evidenced from the Certificate issued by the Revenue Official, Tahsildar dated 21.08.1992, placed at the last page of paper book Annexure He showed us that, the entire land parcel was described by a single survey number and that the description column showed that the land was occupied with buildings. According to him, therefore the action of the TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd consolidated/ undivided land parcel/ property of 20.63 acres, which is occupied by building(s) and cannot be construed as vacant 'urban land' e CWT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that any part of land which is vacant primarily constitutes lawns, car parking space, pavement area, sheds, horticulture area etc. and is thus and which are 3. That the CWT(A)erred on facts and in law in adopting guideline value (GLV) of Rs.5515 per sq ft. of Whites Road to compute value of alleged the GLV does not conclusively depict the fair market value of the property, especially in the facts of the 3.1 That the CWT(A)/ AO erred on the facts and in law in not referring the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (\"DVO\")in terms of ection 16A read with Rule 20 under Schedule III of the Act.” Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted that the AO was s land parcel of 20.63 acres into 9.99 acres and 10.64 acres. He brought to our notice that, the property in question admeasuring 20.63 acres was acquired from the trustees of Madras Club vide registered Sale Deed No.56 of 1950 dated e entire land admeasuring more than 20 acres of land had a common Survey No.315/1 which is evidenced from the Certificate issued by the Revenue Official, Tahsildar dated 21.08.1992, placed at the last page of paper book Annexure -1. He showed us that, the entire land parcel was described by a single survey number and that the description column showed that the land was occupied with buildings. According to him, therefore the action of the lower authorities artificially bifurcating and acres, from the single contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres was erroneous and instead the impugned immovable property was in the nature of building with land appurtenant thereto. To buttress this contention, he also showed us th 13.06.2008 and that too for administrative convenience, that the Revenue Authorities within the Triplicane Division, allotted two more survey numbers 315/3 & 315/6 apart from the existing 315/1 vide PLR dated 13.06.2008 (which event happened later in AY 2009 him therefore, the land admeasuring 10.64 acres could not be treated as separate and independent land, and that it formed part of the consolidated/undivided land parcel of 20.63 acres, which was buildings. Since the buildings were let out and used for business purposes, and the adjoining land was being used for horticulture, cattle farming etc., it was his contention that the impugned property did not qualify as ‘taxable asset’ as it f 2(ea)(i) of the Act. 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that, the AO had misdirected himself by taking note of the demolition agreements dated 29.07.2002 & 02.12.2003, without appreciating the contemporaneo agreements were never acted upon due to litigations. Though all these evidences regarding the litigations had been brought on record, the AO WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 7 :: lower authorities artificially bifurcating and carving out land of 10.64 acres, from the single contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres was erroneous and instead the impugned immovable property was in the nature of building with land appurtenant thereto. To buttress this contention, he also showed us that, it was only later on vide PLR dated 13.06.2008 and that too for administrative convenience, that the Revenue Authorities within the Triplicane Division, allotted two more survey numbers 315/3 & 315/6 apart from the existing 315/1 vide PLR dated (which event happened later in AY 2009-10) him therefore, the land admeasuring 10.64 acres could not be treated as separate and independent land, and that it formed part of the undivided land parcel of 20.63 acres, which was buildings. Since the buildings were let out and used for business purposes, and the adjoining land was being used for horticulture, cattle farming etc., it was his contention that the impugned property did not qualify as ‘taxable asset’ as it fell under the exception set out in Section The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that, the AO had misdirected himself by taking note of the demolition agreements dated 29.07.2002 & 02.12.2003, without appreciating the contemporaneous fact that, these agreements were never acted upon due to litigations. Though all these evidences regarding the litigations had been brought on record, the AO TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd carving out land of 10.64 acres, from the single contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres was erroneous and instead the impugned immovable property was in the nature of building with land appurtenant thereto. To buttress this at, it was only later on vide PLR dated 13.06.2008 and that too for administrative convenience, that the Revenue Authorities within the Triplicane Division, allotted two more survey numbers 315/3 & 315/6 apart from the existing 315/1 vide PLR dated 10). According to him therefore, the land admeasuring 10.64 acres could not be treated as separate and independent land, and that it formed part of the undivided land parcel of 20.63 acres, which was occupied by buildings. Since the buildings were let out and used for business purposes, and the adjoining land was being used for horticulture, cattle farming etc., it was his contention that the impugned property did not ell under the exception set out in Section The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that, the AO had misdirected himself by taking note of the demolition agreements dated 29.07.2002 & us fact that, these agreements were never acted upon due to litigations. Though all these evidences regarding the litigations had been brought on record, the AO had refused to accept the same. He showed us that, the action of the AO was primarily influence transferred land of 10.64 acres to subsidiary company i.e. M/s. Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd [M/s.EIPL] on 28.02.2007, on which constructed shopping mall and therefore the AO was of the view that t said land parcel ought to have been vacant in the earlier years. The Ld. Sr. Counsel explained to us that, the inference drawn by the AO was factually incorrect. Reiterating the background facts, the Ld. Sr. Counsel, submitted that, though there was a 2002 & 2003 for demolishing the buildings in 10.64 acres of land, but the same could not be executed because of various litigations launched by tenants, Writ Petitions filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage [INTACH] etc. The assessee, later on, vide agreement dated 18.01.2006 had initially leased out the alleged land for 99 years to M/s. EIPL, which was also cancelled 9.59 acres to M/s EIPL for a considerat acres to CMDA on 28.02.2007. According to him however, the land so transferred was not fully vacant and that it housed the buildings which existed earlier, as the demolition never took place in 2002 & 2003. According to him, the demolition took place when all the disputes were resolved which was after the last valuation date before us i.e., 31.03.2006. He further WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 8 :: had refused to accept the same. He showed us that, the action of the AO was primarily influenced by the later fact that, the assessee had transferred land of 10.64 acres to subsidiary company i.e. M/s. Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd [M/s.EIPL] on 28.02.2007, on which constructed shopping mall and therefore the AO was of the view that t said land parcel ought to have been vacant in the earlier years. The Ld. Sr. Counsel explained to us that, the inference drawn by the AO was factually incorrect. Reiterating the background facts, the Ld. Sr. Counsel, submitted that, though there was a demolition agreements 2002 & 2003 for demolishing the buildings in 10.64 acres of land, but the same could not be executed because of various litigations launched by tenants, Writ Petitions filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural eritage [INTACH] etc. The assessee, later on, vide agreement dated 18.01.2006 had initially leased out the alleged land for 99 years to M/s. EIPL, which was also cancelled; and that, the assessee finally transferred, 9.59 acres to M/s EIPL for a consideration of Rs 225 cr and gifted 1.05 acres to CMDA on 28.02.2007. According to him however, the land so transferred was not fully vacant and that it housed the buildings which existed earlier, as the demolition never took place in 2002 & 2003. , the demolition took place when all the disputes were resolved which was after the last valuation date before us i.e., further submitted that, only because the assessee sold TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd had refused to accept the same. He showed us that, the action of the AO d by the later fact that, the assessee had transferred land of 10.64 acres to subsidiary company i.e. M/s. Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd [M/s.EIPL] on 28.02.2007, on which M/s EIPL had constructed shopping mall and therefore the AO was of the view that the said land parcel ought to have been vacant in the earlier years. The Ld. Sr. Counsel explained to us that, the inference drawn by the AO was factually incorrect. Reiterating the background facts, the Ld. Sr. Counsel, entered into in 2002 & 2003 for demolishing the buildings in 10.64 acres of land, but the same could not be executed because of various litigations launched by tenants, Writ Petitions filed by Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural eritage [INTACH] etc. The assessee, later on, vide agreement dated 18.01.2006 had initially leased out the alleged land for 99 years to M/s. and that, the assessee finally transferred, ion of Rs 225 cr and gifted 1.05 acres to CMDA on 28.02.2007. According to him however, the land so transferred was not fully vacant and that it housed the buildings which existed earlier, as the demolition never took place in 2002 & 2003. , the demolition took place when all the disputes were resolved which was after the last valuation date before us i.e., , only because the assessee sold 10.64 acres out of 20.63 acres later on, will not change the fact land sold constituted “appurtenant land” to the buildings occupied within the 20.63 acres and hence could not be termed as separate & independent “vacant land”. According to him, the land sold was all along part of the contiguous piece of land a in the year 1950 and it was always held under one s the impugned AYs 2004 identified and sold the said land in 2007 that, were given in 2008 viz., after the relevant AYs in question. according to the assessee, the land was in the nature of ‘appurtenant land’ to the buildings in the said land parcel of 20.63 acres and did not constitute ‘vacant land’. 9. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. Counsel further drew our attention to the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling & placed at Page Nos.1-12 of the Paper Book that the Commissioner ha acquisition of excess vacant land verifying the facts, had passed an order dated 03.10.1997 in respect of proceedings u/s.9 (5)/10(1) of vacant land which could be acquired and that the adjoining vacant lands were integral part of the buildings occupied in the said land and therefore WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 9 :: 10.64 acres out of 20.63 acres later on, will not change the fact land sold constituted “appurtenant land” to the buildings occupied within the 20.63 acres and hence could not be termed as separate & independent “vacant land”. According to him, the land sold was all along part of the contiguous piece of land admeasuring 20.63 acres purchased in the year 1950 and it was always held under one survey number across the impugned AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 and that, only after the assessee identified and sold the said land in 2007 that, the new survey numbers 2008 viz., after the relevant AYs in question. according to the assessee, the land was in the nature of ‘appurtenant land’ to the buildings in the said land parcel of 20.63 acres and did not constitute ‘vacant land’. he Ld. Sr. Counsel further drew our attention to the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1992, which i 12 of the Paper Book – (Volume-I). He that the Commissioner had initially put the assessee to notice regarding acquisition of excess vacant land, but after conducting inspection and verifying the facts, had passed an order dated 03.10.1997 in respect of (5)/10(1) of that Act holding that, there was no excess vacant land which could be acquired and that the adjoining vacant lands were integral part of the buildings occupied in the said land and therefore TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd 10.64 acres out of 20.63 acres later on, will not change the fact that, the land sold constituted “appurtenant land” to the buildings occupied within the 20.63 acres and hence could not be termed as separate & independent “vacant land”. According to him, the land sold was all along dmeasuring 20.63 acres purchased urvey number across only after the assessee survey numbers 2008 viz., after the relevant AYs in question. Prior thereto, according to the assessee, the land was in the nature of ‘appurtenant land’ to the buildings in the said land parcel of 20.63 acres and did not he Ld. Sr. Counsel further drew our attention to the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under Regulation) Act, 1992, which is found I). He submitted initially put the assessee to notice regarding but after conducting inspection and verifying the facts, had passed an order dated 03.10.1997 in respect of that Act holding that, there was no excess vacant land which could be acquired and that the adjoining vacant lands were integral part of the buildings occupied in the said land and therefore constituted land appurtenant thereto. According to him, this mat piece of evidence clearly dislodged the findings of the lower authorities that the assessee held vacant land of 10.64 acres. 10. The Ld. Sr. Counsel also referred to the detailed sketch map of subject land admeasuring 20.63 acres, which paper-book (Vol IV), whose better enlarged copy on A3 sheet was handed over to us at the time of hearing. Taking us through the sketch map, he highlighted the large coverage of land with buildings and other constructions scattered over utilized for business purposes; and the lands in between the said buildings was in the nature of land appurtenant to the said buildings and that it could not be regarded as vacant urban land. 11. The Ld. Sr. Counsel also land authorities had treated the entire land parcel as single & independent and found it to be occupied with buildings in excess of 47% of the land area. According to him therefore, the findings of the lower authorities that only 2-5% of the land is non and devoid of merit. 12. Overall therefore, the of vacant land in the impugned prope WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 10 :: constituted land appurtenant thereto. According to him, this mat piece of evidence clearly dislodged the findings of the lower authorities that the assessee held vacant land of 10.64 acres. The Ld. Sr. Counsel also referred to the detailed sketch map of subject land admeasuring 20.63 acres, which is found kept , whose better enlarged copy on A3 sheet was handed at the time of hearing. Taking us through the sketch map, he highlighted the large coverage of land with buildings and other constructions scattered over the land, which were leased out or are utilized for business purposes; and showed us that the vacant portion of the lands in between the said buildings was in the nature of land appurtenant to the said buildings and that it could not be regarded as The Ld. Sr. Counsel also emphasized on the fact that, the relevant land authorities had treated the entire land parcel as single & independent and found it to be occupied with buildings in excess of 47% of the land therefore, the findings of the lower authorities that 5% of the land is non-vacant was grossly erroneous, contra Overall therefore, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that, any portion in the impugned property could only be considered as land TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd constituted land appurtenant thereto. According to him, this material piece of evidence clearly dislodged the findings of the lower authorities The Ld. Sr. Counsel also referred to the detailed sketch map of the kept at page 382 of , whose better enlarged copy on A3 sheet was handed at the time of hearing. Taking us through the sketch map, he highlighted the large coverage of land with buildings and other the land, which were leased out or are that the vacant portion of the lands in between the said buildings was in the nature of land appurtenant to the said buildings and that it could not be regarded as emphasized on the fact that, the relevant land authorities had treated the entire land parcel as single & independent and found it to be occupied with buildings in excess of 47% of the land therefore, the findings of the lower authorities that vacant was grossly erroneous, contra-factual d. Sr. Counsel contended that, any portion could only be considered as land appurtenant to the buildings(s) and cannot be considered as separate ‘urban land’ for purposes of wealth tax. In support of his contentions, he also relied on several judicial precedents, which we shall discuss in the ensuing paragraphs. Apart from the foregoing, and without prejudice, the Ld. Sr. Counsel also objected to the valuation methodology adopted by the AO for wealth tax purposes. 13. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue Clement Ramesh Kumar, authorities, which according to him, were detailed and exhaustive. submitted that, the very fact that the assessee had later on identified and transferred 10.64 acres of land to its subsidiary and CM the impugned land parcel was lying vacant and therefore it was rightly assessed to wealth tax. He submitted that, the reference being made by the assessee to the details relevance as these documents wealth tax purposes. The Ld. DR further relied on the agreement for the transfer of the land to the subsidiary, where in the recitals, the land was being referred as vacant. According to him therefore, such large parce land cannot be said to be ‘land appurtenant’ to the buildings housed in the overall land area of 20.63 acres. He thus urged us that the order of the lower authorities does not call for any interference. WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 11 :: appurtenant to the buildings(s) and cannot be considered as separate ‘urban land’ for purposes of wealth tax. In support of his contentions, he also relied on several judicial precedents, which we shall discuss in the nsuing paragraphs. Apart from the foregoing, and without prejudice, the Ld. Sr. Counsel also objected to the valuation methodology adopted by the AO for wealth tax purposes. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue Kumar, vehemently relied on the findings of the lower authorities, which according to him, were detailed and exhaustive. submitted that, the very fact that the assessee had later on identified and transferred 10.64 acres of land to its subsidiary and CMDA showed that the impugned land parcel was lying vacant and therefore it was rightly assessed to wealth tax. He submitted that, the reference being made by the assessee to the details/orders the land authorities was of little relevance as these documents did not have any decisive bearing for wealth tax purposes. The Ld. DR further relied on the agreement for the transfer of the land to the subsidiary, where in the recitals, the land was being referred as vacant. According to him therefore, such large parce land cannot be said to be ‘land appurtenant’ to the buildings housed in the overall land area of 20.63 acres. He thus urged us that the order of the lower authorities does not call for any interference. TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd appurtenant to the buildings(s) and cannot be considered as separate ‘urban land’ for purposes of wealth tax. In support of his contentions, he also relied on several judicial precedents, which we shall discuss in the nsuing paragraphs. Apart from the foregoing, and without prejudice, the Ld. Sr. Counsel also objected to the valuation methodology adopted by Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue Shri R. vehemently relied on the findings of the lower authorities, which according to him, were detailed and exhaustive. He submitted that, the very fact that the assessee had later on identified and DA showed that the impugned land parcel was lying vacant and therefore it was rightly assessed to wealth tax. He submitted that, the reference being made by orders the land authorities was of little did not have any decisive bearing for wealth tax purposes. The Ld. DR further relied on the agreement for the transfer of the land to the subsidiary, where in the recitals, the land was being referred as vacant. According to him therefore, such large parcel of land cannot be said to be ‘land appurtenant’ to the buildings housed in the overall land area of 20.63 acres. He thus urged us that the order of 14. We have heard both the parties and perused t before us. The issue before us for consideration is that, whether the land of 10.64 acres separately identified by the AO could be regarded as a ‘vacant urban land’ for the purposes of levying wealth tax in terms Section 2(ea)(v) of appurtenant’ to let-out houses set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory prov the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The term ‘asset’ has been defined in Section 2(ea) of the Act, as follows: (ea) \"assets\", in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, means (i) any building or land appurtenant thereto referred to as \"house\"), whether used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest otherwise including a farm kilometres fr Municipality, Municipal Corporation or by any other name) or a Cantonment Board, (1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and which is allotted by a company to an em a director who is in whole annual salary of less than five lakh rupees; (2) any house for residenti forms part of stoke (3) any house which the assessee may oc purposes of any business or profession carried on by him; WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 12 :: We have heard both the parties and perused the materials placed before us. The issue before us for consideration is that, whether the land of 10.64 acres separately identified by the AO could be regarded as a ‘vacant urban land’ for the purposes of levying wealth tax in terms Section 2(ea)(v) of the Act, or whether it constituted as ‘land out houses/buildings and thus fell under the exception set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory prov the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The term ‘asset’ has been defined in Section 2(ea) of the Act, as follows: (ea) \"assets\", in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, any building or land appurtenant thereto referred to as \"house\"), whether used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest otherwise including a farm-house situated within twenty kilometres from local limits of any municipality (whether known as Municipality, Municipal Corporation or by any other name) or a Cantonment Board, but does not include- (1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or a director who is in whole-time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than five lakh rupees; (2) any house for residential or commercial purposes which forms part of stoke-in-trade; (3) any house which the assessee may occupy purposes of any business or profession carried on by him; TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd he materials placed before us. The issue before us for consideration is that, whether the land of 10.64 acres separately identified by the AO could be regarded as a ‘vacant urban land’ for the purposes of levying wealth tax in terms of whether it constituted as ‘land buildings and thus fell under the exception set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The term ‘asset’ has been defined in Section (ea) \"assets\", in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, (hereinafter referred to as \"house\"), whether used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest-house or house situated within twenty-five om local limits of any municipality (whether known as Municipality, Municipal Corporation or by any other name) or a (1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and ployee or an officer or time employment, having a gross al or commercial purposes which cupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him; (4) any residential property that has been let minimum period of three hundred days in the previous year; (5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or compl (ii) …. (iii) ….. (iv) …… (v) urban land 15. From the above, it is noted that, in terms of Section 2(ea)(i), any ‘building or land appurtenant thereto asset, where such building either let out or is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. Further, Section 2(ea)(v) is noted to include ‘urban land’ within the purview of ‘taxable asset’ for wealth ta The term ‘urban land’ has been defined in Explanation 1(b) as “(v) urban land Explanation for the purpose of this clause (a) .......... (b) \"urban land\" means land situate (i) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation...) ... ...and which has a population of not less than ten thousand....; or (ii) ... (regarding area outside the municipal limits), WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 13 :: any residential property that has been let minimum period of three hundred days in the previous any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes” urban land; [emphasized by us] From the above, it is noted that, in terms of Section 2(ea)(i), any ‘building or land appurtenant thereto’ shall not be regarded as a taxable asset, where such building along with the land appurtenant thereto, is either let out or is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. Further, Section 2(ea)(v) is noted to include ‘urban land’ within the purview of ‘taxable asset’ for wealth ta The term ‘urban land’ has been defined in Explanation 1(b) as Explanation for the purpose of this clause— \"urban land\" means land situate— in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation...) ... ...and which has a population of not less than ten thousand....; or (ii) ... (regarding area outside the municipal limits), TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd any residential property that has been let-out for a minimum period of three hundred days in the previous any property in the nature of commercial [emphasized by us] From the above, it is noted that, in terms of Section 2(ea)(i), any not be regarded as a taxable along with the land appurtenant thereto, is either let out or is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. Further, Section 2(ea)(v) is noted to include ‘urban land’ within the purview of ‘taxable asset’ for wealth tax purposes. The term ‘urban land’ has been defined in Explanation 1(b) as follows: - in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation...) ... ...and which has a population of not less (ii) ... (regarding area outside the municipal limits), but does not include land permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as a five years from the date of its acquisition by him. 16. We find that, the term ‘urban land’ excludes such land which is already occupied by building. Further, as noted earlier, Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act provides that, such building along with land appurtenant thereto will not be regarded as a taxable asset, if such build is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. It is therefore observed that, the land which is appurtenant to a building will not qualify as ‘urban land’. 17. The case of the assessee before u was appurtenant to the several buildings in the overall land parcel of 20.63 acres and assessee was running business from the dairy farming & horticulture, and therefore, fell under the exceptions set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that, the said land of 10.64 acres was separate and independent and therefore qualified as vacant ‘urban land’ under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. 18. It is noted that, the term ‘land appurtenan the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as it stood during the impugned AYs. It was WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 14 :: but does not include land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as a stock-in-trade for a period of five years from the date of its acquisition by him.” [emphasized by us] , the term ‘urban land’ excludes such land which is already occupied by building. Further, as noted earlier, Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act provides that, such building along with land appurtenant thereto will not be regarded as a taxable asset, if such building is either let out or is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. It is therefore observed that, the land which is appurtenant to a building will not qualify as ‘urban land’. The case of the assessee before us is that, the land of 10.64 acres was appurtenant to the several buildings in the overall land parcel of assessee was running business from the dairy farming & therefore, fell under the exceptions set out in Section (i) of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that, the said land of 10.64 acres was separate and independent and therefore qualified as vacant ‘urban land’ under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. It is noted that, the term ‘land appurtenant’ has not been defined in the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as it stood during the impugned AYs. It was TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by trade for a period of [emphasized by us] , the term ‘urban land’ excludes such land which is already occupied by building. Further, as noted earlier, Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act provides that, such building along with land appurtenant thereto ing is either let out or is occupied for business purposes or is in the nature of commercial establishments. It is therefore observed that, the land which is s is that, the land of 10.64 acres was appurtenant to the several buildings in the overall land parcel of assessee was running business from the dairy farming & therefore, fell under the exceptions set out in Section (i) of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that, the said land of 10.64 acres was separate and independent and therefore qualified as vacant ‘urban land’ under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. t’ has not been defined in the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as it stood during the impugned AYs. It was however brought to our notice that, earlier there was a definition of ‘land appurtenant’ which existed during 01.04.1976 to 31.03.1993 which was very narrow and included only the minimum extent of land contiguous to the building required to be kept open as per the absence of such by-laws 1/3 definition was explicitly removed therefore, we are in agreement with the assessee that, the Legislature consciously had omitted t ‘land appurtenant’ has to be understood in common parlance along with the broad meaning given by the jurisprudence which prevailed prior to 1976. 19. Having regard to the above position of law, we now revert back to the facts involved in the present case. It is noted that, the assessee had acquired land of 20.63 acres in the year 195 transfer and the said land was allotted a single Survey Number. The description of the said land as appearing in the records of the land revenue authorities was that, it was occupied by buildings. It is not in dispute that, the said land of 20.63 acres housed 51 independent buildings which were either let out or being used for business purposes. Apart from the foregoing, the appurtenant land to these buildings are noted to have been inter alia being used for horticulture and dairy farming. These contemporaneous facts are noted to be evidenced by the WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 15 :: however brought to our notice that, earlier there was a definition of ‘land appurtenant’ which existed during 01.04.1976 to 31.03.1993 which was nd included only the minimum extent of land contiguous to the building required to be kept open as per the ‘building laws 1/3rd of the plinth area. However, the said definition was explicitly removed/omitted by the Finance Act, 1993 and therefore, we are in agreement with the assessee that, the Legislature had omitted the narrow definition, and that the definition of ‘land appurtenant’ has to be understood in common parlance along with meaning given by the jurisprudence which prevailed prior to Having regard to the above position of law, we now revert back to the facts involved in the present case. It is noted that, the assessee had acquired land of 20.63 acres in the year 1950 through a single deed of transfer and the said land was allotted a single Survey Number. The description of the said land as appearing in the records of the land revenue authorities was that, it was occupied by buildings. It is not in aid land of 20.63 acres housed 51 independent buildings which were either let out or being used for business purposes. Apart from the foregoing, the appurtenant land to these buildings are noted to have been inter alia being used for horticulture and dairy farming. These contemporaneous facts are noted to be evidenced by the TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd however brought to our notice that, earlier there was a definition of ‘land- appurtenant’ which existed during 01.04.1976 to 31.03.1993 which was nd included only the minimum extent of land contiguous to ‘building by-laws’ or in of the plinth area. However, the said by the Finance Act, 1993 and therefore, we are in agreement with the assessee that, the Legislature and that the definition of ‘land appurtenant’ has to be understood in common parlance along with meaning given by the jurisprudence which prevailed prior to Having regard to the above position of law, we now revert back to the facts involved in the present case. It is noted that, the assessee had 0 through a single deed of transfer and the said land was allotted a single Survey Number. The description of the said land as appearing in the records of the land revenue authorities was that, it was occupied by buildings. It is not in aid land of 20.63 acres housed 51 independent buildings which were either let out or being used for business purposes. Apart from the foregoing, the appurtenant land to these buildings are noted to have been inter alia being used for horticulture and dairy farming. These contemporaneous facts are noted to be evidenced by the rental income/business income declared from the subject property, which is as under: Particulars Rental Income (from Chennai Property) Income From Dairy Farming 20. It is noted that, the assessee has provided the tenant wise details of the rental income derived from letting out the buildings occupied in the land or 20.63 acres. The assessee is also found to have derived income from dairy farming, which understandably sheds and garden. After perusing the detailed sketch map of the subject land admeasuring 20.63 acres, it is seen that, the land is indeed covered by several buildings and other constructions which are scattered all over the land. As noted above, the buildings/constructions were leased out or utilized for business purposes. Reading of the sketch map is found to support the assessee’s plea that, the vacant portions of the land in between the buildings/constructed spaces constituted thereto. In light of this sketch map, having regard to the size of the land, and number of buildings therein, we agree with the assessee that, there would be open areas, common spaces, lawns, car parkings, pavements, etc. in the said land parcel appurtenant to the buildings. It was also brought to our notice that, the said land parcel also housed the Madras WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 16 :: rental income/business income declared from the subject property, which AY 2004-05 AY 2005-06 AY 2006 Rs.1,66,25,361 Rs.2,19,58,839 Rs.2,68,24,790 Rs.9,00,539 Rs.9,57,523 Rs. 9,39,474 It is noted that, the assessee has provided the tenant wise details of the rental income derived from letting out the buildings occupied in the land or 20.63 acres. The assessee is also found to have derived income from dairy farming, which understandably would require open spaces, sheds and garden. After perusing the detailed sketch map of the subject land admeasuring 20.63 acres, it is seen that, the land is indeed covered by several buildings and other constructions which are scattered all over As noted above, the buildings/constructions were leased out or utilized for business purposes. Reading of the sketch map is found to support the assessee’s plea that, the vacant portions of the land in between the buildings/constructed spaces constituted land appurtenant thereto. In light of this sketch map, having regard to the size of the land, and number of buildings therein, we agree with the assessee that, there would be open areas, common spaces, lawns, car parkings, pavements, parcel appurtenant to the buildings. It was also brought to our notice that, the said land parcel also housed the Madras TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd rental income/business income declared from the subject property, which AY 2006-07 Rs.2,68,24,790 Rs. 9,39,474 It is noted that, the assessee has provided the tenant wise details of the rental income derived from letting out the buildings occupied in the land or 20.63 acres. The assessee is also found to have derived income would require open spaces, sheds and garden. After perusing the detailed sketch map of the subject land admeasuring 20.63 acres, it is seen that, the land is indeed covered by several buildings and other constructions which are scattered all over As noted above, the buildings/constructions were leased out or utilized for business purposes. Reading of the sketch map is found to support the assessee’s plea that, the vacant portions of the land in land appurtenant thereto. In light of this sketch map, having regard to the size of the land, and number of buildings therein, we agree with the assessee that, there would be open areas, common spaces, lawns, car parkings, pavements, parcel appurtenant to the buildings. It was also brought to our notice that, the said land parcel also housed the Madras Club, to which open space and garden would be an integral part of the Club for public gathering, social events and relaxation etc. Over therefore, on the given facts of this particular case, it is observed that, the impugned land of 10.64 acres which inter alia comprised of land in between the buildings occupied in the single contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres was appurtenant theret view, the AO was unjustified in artificially bifurcating the same and holding it to be separate and independent vacant land. We find the reliance placed by the assessee on the PLR issued by the Tahsildar dated 21.08.1992 wherein the land of 20.63 acres has been described to be one single independent land parcel having one survey number 315/1 and the description field mentions that the land is occupied by buildings to be relevant in this context. 21. It is further observed holding the land of 10.64 acres to be vacant was that, it was occupied by building, which constituted only 2 done is that, he has left out the land which is occupied by buildings/constructed space and has only considered the appurtenant land as the balance remaining land and since on such remaining land, the construction was minimal/negligible, he has inferred it to be ‘vacant’. Having perused the facts placed before us and i submitted by the assessee, we find this inference drawn by the AO to be WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 17 :: Club, to which open space and garden would be an integral part of the Club for public gathering, social events and relaxation etc. Over therefore, on the given facts of this particular case, it is observed that, the impugned land of 10.64 acres which inter alia comprised of land in between the buildings occupied in the single contiguous land parcel of 20.63 acres was appurtenant thereto, and therefore in our considered view, the AO was unjustified in artificially bifurcating the same and holding it to be separate and independent vacant land. We find the reliance placed by the assessee on the PLR issued by the Tahsildar dated wherein the land of 20.63 acres has been described to be one single independent land parcel having one survey number 315/1 and the description field mentions that the land is occupied by buildings to be relevant in this context. It is further observed that, one of the reasons given by the AO for holding the land of 10.64 acres to be vacant was that, it was occupied by building, which constituted only 2-5% of the land area. What the AO has done is that, he has left out the land which is occupied by dings/constructed space and has only considered the appurtenant land as the balance remaining land and since on such remaining land, the construction was minimal/negligible, he has inferred it to be ‘vacant’. Having perused the facts placed before us and in light of the sketch map submitted by the assessee, we find this inference drawn by the AO to be TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd Club, to which open space and garden would be an integral part of the Club for public gathering, social events and relaxation etc. Overall therefore, on the given facts of this particular case, it is observed that, the impugned land of 10.64 acres which inter alia comprised of land in between the buildings occupied in the single contiguous land parcel of o, and therefore in our considered view, the AO was unjustified in artificially bifurcating the same and holding it to be separate and independent vacant land. We find the reliance placed by the assessee on the PLR issued by the Tahsildar dated wherein the land of 20.63 acres has been described to be one single independent land parcel having one survey number 315/1 and the description field mentions that the land is occupied by buildings to be that, one of the reasons given by the AO for holding the land of 10.64 acres to be vacant was that, it was occupied by What the AO has done is that, he has left out the land which is occupied by dings/constructed space and has only considered the appurtenant land as the balance remaining land and since on such remaining land, the construction was minimal/negligible, he has inferred it to be ‘vacant’. n light of the sketch map submitted by the assessee, we find this inference drawn by the AO to be factually incorrect. According to us, for the reasons already discussed above, land of 20.63 acres was to be considered together for the purposes of ascertaining the vacant and non almost half of the land area is covered by construction and the balance half was used for horticulture, dairy farming, gardens, open spaces, pavements and lawns for club purposes etc. On these facts there therefore do not countenance such finding of the AO that the land was largely vacant. 22. We now proceed to take note of the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 199 crucial material in the context of the dispute in the present case. It is noted that, the competent authority had acquiring the “excess vacant” land lying unused 20.63 acres. The basis of this notice was the State dated 7.10.1991 which 4,24,96,300 out of 8,67,34,585 (20.63 acres) 47.35% is not vacant. The relevant extracted below:- WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 18 :: factually incorrect. According to us, for the reasons already discussed above, land of 20.63 acres was to be considered together for the ing the vacant and non-vacant area. It is seen that almost half of the land area is covered by construction and the balance half was used for horticulture, dairy farming, gardens, open spaces, pavements and lawns for club purposes etc. On these facts there therefore do not countenance such finding of the AO that the land was We now proceed to take note of the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1992 dated 03.10.1997, which in our view, is the crucial material in the context of the dispute in the present case. It is he competent authority had issued notice to the assessee for acquiring the “excess vacant” land lying unused in the land pa 20.63 acres. The basis of this notice was the State Government order which had computed total non-vacant land at about 4,24,96,300 out of 8,67,34,585 (20.63 acres), according to . The relevant portion contained in the said order TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd factually incorrect. According to us, for the reasons already discussed above, land of 20.63 acres was to be considered together for the vacant area. It is seen that almost half of the land area is covered by construction and the balance half was used for horticulture, dairy farming, gardens, open spaces, pavements and lawns for club purposes etc. On these facts therefore, we therefore do not countenance such finding of the AO that the land was We now proceed to take note of the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling 2 dated 03.10.1997, which in our view, is the crucial material in the context of the dispute in the present case. It is issued notice to the assessee for in the land parcel of Government order vacant land at about , according to which, around portion contained in the said order is 23. It is further observed by us that, after examining the relevant facts, and after carrying out physical inspection, the Commissioner had noted, at Para 4 of the said order land. Thereafter, the Para 7 of the said order recorded revealed the details of building numbering to 45 on the land used for different purposes. The Commissioner is therefore noted to have ordered physical inspection and found that, the land and building(s) had issued report which contained details of 51 independent buildings on the land with description about use thereof, whose detailed list is found placed The description contained in the order clearly mentioned that, the buildings include director’s residence, temples, cow sheds, staff quarters, outhouses, yoga center, fridge house, paper go room, Max-muller Bhawan WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 19 :: It is further observed by us that, after examining the relevant facts, and after carrying out physical inspection, the Commissioner had noted, Para 4 of the said order, the factum of various buildings on the said Para 7 of the said order recorded that the old files revealed the details of building numbering to 45 on the land used for The Commissioner is therefore noted to have ordered tion and found that, the Circle Officer who had inspected the land and building(s) had issued report which contained details of 51 independent buildings on the land with description about use thereof, found placed at pages 7 to 9 of paper The description contained in the order clearly mentioned that, the buildings include director’s residence, temples, cow sheds, staff quarters, , fridge house, paper go-down and canteen, record muller Bhawan, meditation hall, transformer, pump room etc. TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd It is further observed by us that, after examining the relevant facts, and after carrying out physical inspection, the Commissioner had noted, s buildings on the said that the old files revealed the details of building numbering to 45 on the land used for The Commissioner is therefore noted to have ordered the Circle Officer who had inspected the land and building(s) had issued report which contained details of 51 independent buildings on the land with description about use thereof, paper-book Vol I. The description contained in the order clearly mentioned that, the buildings include director’s residence, temples, cow sheds, staff quarters, down and canteen, record , meditation hall, transformer, pump room etc. It was also noted by the Circle Officer that, the Land covered with lawn, car park, pavement area etc. which cannot be considered as vacant as they are crucial for running hotel/ madras club where public gathe relaxation. It was also noted by the Circle dairy farming and horticulture on the appurtenant land. In light of facts and physical inspection report, the competent authority concluded that there was no “excess va utilization of premises on page 12 of the paper book Vol I; extracted hereunder for ready reference: WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 20 :: the Circle Officer that, the Land covered with lawn, car park, pavement area etc. which cannot be considered as vacant as they are crucial for running hotel/ madras club where public gathe relaxation. It was also noted by the Circle Officer, the assessee was doing dairy farming and horticulture on the appurtenant land. In light of facts and physical inspection report, the competent authority concluded excess vacant land” in the premises and detailed the utilization of premises on page 12 of the paper book Vol I; extracted hereunder for ready reference: TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd the Circle Officer that, the Land covered with lawn, car park, pavement area etc. which cannot be considered as vacant as they are crucial for running hotel/ madras club where public gather for the assessee was doing dairy farming and horticulture on the appurtenant land. In light of these facts and physical inspection report, the competent authority concluded in the premises and detailed the utilization of premises on page 12 of the paper book Vol I; which is 24. In light of the above, it is noted that, the physically inspecting the property and upon considering the entire conspectus of facts found that, there was accordingly dropped the proposed show cause order passed by the competent authority, we n assessee’s plea that, the land of 20.63 acres was a single contiguous one, but also that the land of 10.64 acres was appurtenant to the several buildings comprised in the overall land parcel and was also being inter alia used for commercial purposes and therefore relying upon the said order, we hold that the AO was unjustified in holding the land of 10.64 crores to vacant urban land for wealth tax purposes. 25. It is further observed that, the case of the Revenue bringing to tax the land of 10.64 acres as ‘urban vacant land’ also hinged on two additional aspects viz., (a) the assessee had entered into demolition agreements for vacating the land of 10.64 acres in the year 2002 and 2003 and therefore the said land was lying vacant du AYs and (b) later on the said land was sold by the assessee to its subsidiary on which the latter constructed a shopping complex and therefore it was held to be vacant land. 26. From the facts available on record, we observe that, the ca Revenue suffered from hindsight bias. It was only because the assessee’s WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 21 :: In light of the above, it is noted that, the competent authority physically inspecting the property and upon considering the entire found that, there was no “excess vacant land” accordingly dropped the proposed show cause. Having regard to this order passed by the competent authority, we not only find merit in the assessee’s plea that, the land of 20.63 acres was a single contiguous one, but also that the land of 10.64 acres was appurtenant to the several buildings comprised in the overall land parcel and was also being inter alia commercial purposes and therefore relying upon the said order, we hold that the AO was unjustified in holding the land of 10.64 crores to vacant urban land for wealth tax purposes. It is further observed that, the case of the Revenue bringing to tax he land of 10.64 acres as ‘urban vacant land’ also hinged on two additional aspects viz., (a) the assessee had entered into demolition agreements for vacating the land of 10.64 acres in the year 2002 and 2003 and therefore the said land was lying vacant during the impugned AYs and (b) later on the said land was sold by the assessee to its subsidiary on which the latter constructed a shopping complex and therefore it was held to be vacant land. From the facts available on record, we observe that, the ca Revenue suffered from hindsight bias. It was only because the assessee’s TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd competent authority after physically inspecting the property and upon considering the entire “excess vacant land” and Having regard to this ot only find merit in the assessee’s plea that, the land of 20.63 acres was a single contiguous one, but also that the land of 10.64 acres was appurtenant to the several buildings comprised in the overall land parcel and was also being inter alia commercial purposes and therefore relying upon the said order, we hold that the AO was unjustified in holding the land of 10.64 crores to It is further observed that, the case of the Revenue bringing to tax he land of 10.64 acres as ‘urban vacant land’ also hinged on two additional aspects viz., (a) the assessee had entered into demolition agreements for vacating the land of 10.64 acres in the year 2002 and ring the impugned AYs and (b) later on the said land was sold by the assessee to its subsidiary on which the latter constructed a shopping complex and From the facts available on record, we observe that, the case of the Revenue suffered from hindsight bias. It was only because the assessee’s subsidiary constructed the shopping c assumed that the land transferred by the assessee was lying vacant. From the material placed on record, we had entered into demolition agreements with contractors in the years 2002 & 2003, but the same did 2003 to 2007 due to several ongoing disputes and litigations with the tenants and other stakeholders. It was brought to our notice that, a w petitionagainst the demolition activity was filed by the Madras High Court, which 17.11.2003, but the assessee immediately thereafter as the party may approach higher Court for appropriate orders. Simultaneously, the occupying tenants had also objected to the demolition activity and that after prolonged litigation/arbitration the disputes were finally sett 2006 & 2007, which showed that the demolition could not have taken place prior thereto. For instance, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the memo of compromise dated 28.04.2006 with one tenant, Automobile, found placed a revealed that the said tenant parking, test drives, workshop etc., and in terms of the compromise, tenant was to vacate and deliver assessee only by 30.06.2006 WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 22 :: subsidiary constructed the shopping complex that, the Revenue has sumed that the land transferred by the assessee was lying vacant. From the material placed on record, we note that, though the assessee had entered into demolition agreements with contractors in the years 2002 & 2003, but the same didn’t materialize/take place during the period 2003 to 2007 due to several ongoing disputes and litigations with the other stakeholders. It was brought to our notice that, a w petitionagainst the demolition activity was filed by the INTACH Madras High Court, which though was dismissed vide order dated , but the assessee was advised not to start de immediately thereafter as the party may approach higher Court for Simultaneously, the occupying tenants had also objected to the demolition activity and that after prolonged litigation/arbitration the disputes were finally settled only in the years 2006 & 2007, which showed that the demolition could not have taken place prior thereto. For instance, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the emo of compromise dated 28.04.2006 with one tenant, placed at Pages 55 to 57 of paper revealed that the said tenant was occupying the appurtenant land for parking, test drives, workshop etc., and in terms of the compromise, was to vacate and deliver the possession of the property to the by 30.06.2006 and that the said tenant finally did so only TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd omplex that, the Revenue has sumed that the land transferred by the assessee was lying vacant. note that, though the assessee had entered into demolition agreements with contractors in the years during the period 2003 to 2007 due to several ongoing disputes and litigations with the other stakeholders. It was brought to our notice that, a writ INTACH before the was dismissed vide order dated was advised not to start demolition immediately thereafter as the party may approach higher Court for Simultaneously, the occupying tenants had also objected to the demolition activity and that after prolonged led only in the years 2006 & 2007, which showed that the demolition could not have taken place prior thereto. For instance, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the emo of compromise dated 28.04.2006 with one tenant, M/s Chandra- 55 to 57 of paper-book, which was occupying the appurtenant land for parking, test drives, workshop etc., and in terms of the compromise, the the possession of the property to the and that the said tenant finally did so only on 17.07.2006 (AY 2007 record the plaint filed by certain tenants in the year 2003, in terms of which the assessee was that later on the surrender of lease facts, taken note of by us, supported the assessee’s plea that, the demolition didn’t take place until 2006. However, the Revenue is noted to have disagreed because the ‘vacant- land’ in the lease dated 18.01.2006. To this, the Ld. AR submitted that, the land was casually mentioned as vacant land but building, shops, etc., existed at that time as explained above. us the receipts of property taxes paid buildings on subject land place. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the assessee’s submission that presumption that, the impugned land was completely vacant, whereas the fact remained that the demolition never took place and that the property was continued to be occupied with building. 27. Qua the transfer deed its subsidiary, which has been relied upon by the Revenue, it was brought to our notice that, the lower authorities had conspicuously referred to only specific recitals and ignored the contents of the transfer deed whole. It was shown to us by the assessee that, the WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 23 :: (AY 2007-08). Similarly, the assessee has also placed on record the plaint filed by certain tenants in the year 2003, in terms of which the assessee was refrained from interfering with their urrender of leases only happened in 2006. All these facts, taken note of by us, supported the assessee’s plea that, the t take place until 2006. However, the Revenue is noted to agreed because the land of 10.64 acres was in the lease dated 18.01.2006. To this, the Ld. AR the land was casually mentioned as vacant land but building, shops, etc., existed at that time as explained above. of property taxes paid in December 2006 in respect of the buildings on subject land to support their case that demolition never took place. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the assessee’s submission that, the AO had proceeded on the incorrect presumption that, the impugned land was completely vacant, whereas the fact remained that the demolition never took place and that the property was continued to be occupied with building. he transfer deed dated 26.03.2007 between the assessee and its subsidiary, which has been relied upon by the Revenue, it was brought to our notice that, the lower authorities had conspicuously referred to only specific recitals and ignored the contents of the transfer deed whole. It was shown to us by the assessee that, the TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd . Similarly, the assessee has also placed on record the plaint filed by certain tenants in the year 2003, in terms of ing with their property and s only happened in 2006. All these facts, taken note of by us, supported the assessee’s plea that, the t take place until 2006. However, the Revenue is noted to mentioned as in the lease dated 18.01.2006. To this, the Ld. AR the land was casually mentioned as vacant land but building, shops, etc., existed at that time as explained above. He showed in December 2006 in respect of the to support their case that demolition never took place. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the , the AO had proceeded on the incorrect presumption that, the impugned land was completely vacant, whereas the fact remained that the demolition never took place and that the property between the assessee and its subsidiary, which has been relied upon by the Revenue, it was brought to our notice that, the lower authorities had conspicuously referred to only specific recitals and ignored the contents of the transfer deed as a whole. It was shown to us by the assessee that, the recitals clearly described the entire land the land and the buildings, property. Further, the subsequent the assessee had decided to transfer Schedule “A”, i.e., 10.64 acres. was appurtenant to the buildings in the overall single contiguous land parcel was being transferred by the assessee. It was further brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that, the said land of 10.64 acres was mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ property as vacant land, taken place by then, which was after the 31.03.2006. We find this there was payment of property taxes until December 2006, and also that the land revenue authorities had allotted new survey numbers to the appurtenant land, identified a According to us, therefore, the reliance placed by the lower authorities on this transfer deed to infer land’ in AYs 2004-05 to 2006 28. Before us the Ld. CIT, DR for the Revenue argued that, such huge land of 10.64 acres which was almost 50% of the total land area could not be regarded as appurtenant land to the buildings occupied in 20.63 acres and that it ought to be restricted to reason noted earlier, there is no definition of appurtenant land in the Act and the WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 24 :: the entire land of 20.63 acres as a contiguous one the land and the buildings, which was also shown as Schedule “A” the subsequent recital at page No.209 show decided to transfer only a portion of the land from Schedule “A”, i.e., 10.64 acres. Accordingly, the said land which until then was appurtenant to the buildings in the overall single contiguous land eing transferred by the assessee. It was further brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that, the said land of 10.64 acres was Schedule ‘B’ property as vacant land, as the demolition had taken place by then, which was after the relevant valuation date of We find this contention to be supported by the fact that there was payment of property taxes until December 2006, and also that the land revenue authorities had allotted new survey numbers to the appurtenant land, identified and sold in 2007, only in the year 2008. According to us, therefore, the reliance placed by the lower authorities on this transfer deed to infer that the impugned land was a vacant ‘urban 05 to 2006-07 was factually misplaced. Before us the Ld. CIT, DR for the Revenue argued that, such huge land of 10.64 acres which was almost 50% of the total land area could not be regarded as appurtenant land to the buildings occupied in 20.63 acres and that it ought to be restricted to reasonable limits. For this, as noted earlier, there is no definition of appurtenant land in the Act and the TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd of 20.63 acres as a contiguous one, including shown as Schedule “A” t page No.209 showed that, a portion of the land from Accordingly, the said land which until then was appurtenant to the buildings in the overall single contiguous land eing transferred by the assessee. It was further brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that, the said land of 10.64 acres was as the demolition had valuation date of to be supported by the fact that there was payment of property taxes until December 2006, and also that the land revenue authorities had allotted new survey numbers to the nd sold in 2007, only in the year 2008. According to us, therefore, the reliance placed by the lower authorities on that the impugned land was a vacant ‘urban Before us the Ld. CIT, DR for the Revenue argued that, such huge land of 10.64 acres which was almost 50% of the total land area could not be regarded as appurtenant land to the buildings occupied in 20.63 able limits. For this, as noted earlier, there is no definition of appurtenant land in the Act and the earlier narrow definition which was provided in the Explanation (b) between 01.04.1976 to 31.03.1993 had been specifically omitted with effect from 01.04.1993. amended the term ‘asset’ and defined it to include building along with land appurtenant thereto, but no principle was laid down to determine considered as land appurtenant Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 1960 Cal. 467held that a house includes land appurtenant to the house It was held that, the term ‘bu but also the appurtenant land viz., that is considered necessary occupation of the house Supreme Courtin the case of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavaila Cunnan Chetty’s Charities 1988 (4) SCC 260, while considering the word ‘appurtenant’, that whether a particular piece of land is appurtenant to the m or not depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. relevant observations, taken note of by us, is as under: \"13. The question, therefore, whether certain land is appurtenant or not is one of fact. The High Court has applied its building as well as to the terms of the lease deed. It has kept in mind that the lease relates to a period about 35 years ago, a time when residential houses occupied large extents of land. There used to be a building in the middl WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 25 :: earlier narrow definition which was provided in the Explanation (b) to 31.03.1993 had been specifically omitted with .1993. It is observed that, the Finance Act, 1992 had amended the term ‘asset’ by inserting clause (ea) in section 2 of the Act, and defined it to include building along with land appurtenant thereto, but no principle was laid down to determine as to how much land is to be considered as land appurtenant to a building. It is observed that the Calcutta High Court in Kalipada Ghosh vs Tulsidas Dutt AIR that a house includes land appurtenant to the house It was held that, the term ‘building’ would not only include the structure but also the appurtenant land viz., garden, court-yard, orchard, and all necessary by the occupier for the convenient occupation of the house. We also take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavaila Cunnan Chetty’s Charities , while considering the word ‘appurtenant’, that whether a particular piece of land is appurtenant to the m or not depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. observations, taken note of by us, is as under:- \"13. The question, therefore, whether certain land is appurtenant or not is one of fact. The High Court has applied its mind to the nature of the building as well as to the terms of the lease deed. It has kept in mind that the lease relates to a period about 35 years ago, a time when residential houses occupied large extents of land. There used to be a building in the middle surrounded by a vast area covered by garden, TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd earlier narrow definition which was provided in the Explanation (b) to 31.03.1993 had been specifically omitted with It is observed that, the Finance Act, 1992 had a) in section 2 of the Act, and defined it to include building along with land appurtenant thereto, but uch land is to be It is observed that the Kalipada Ghosh vs Tulsidas Dutt AIR that a house includes land appurtenant to the house. ilding’ would not only include the structure yard, orchard, and all for the convenient . We also take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavaila Cunnan Chetty’s Charities , while considering the word ‘appurtenant’, had held that whether a particular piece of land is appurtenant to the main building or not depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. The \"13. The question, therefore, whether certain land is appurtenant or not mind to the nature of the building as well as to the terms of the lease deed. It has kept in mind that the lease relates to a period about 35 years ago, a time when residential houses occupied large extents of land. There used to be a e surrounded by a vast area covered by garden, arbor, trees and the like. The lease also describes the building as (‘Club Chambers’) with a municipal door number. The building is itself a substantial one occupying as many as two grounds. Having regard to the position pertaining at the time when the lease was executed, the first appellate Court and High Court came to the conclusion that the land in this case was appurtenant to the building. We see no reason to disturb this finding. On the other hand, we agre land, in the circumstances of this case, was incidental to the enjoyment and beneficial use of the building and, therefore, squarely fell within the definition which has been discussed above.\" 29. From the above, we therefore find t test for ascertaining the land which is to be considered appurtenant to the building but the same would depend on the facts of each case. In this background, we take note of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CWT (257 ITR 718) case, the assessee owned a house property consisting of 175 cents of land with built up area of benefit of the proviso to section 7(4) of Wealt exemption to one residential house to land to the extent of 88 cents out of view that the same was reasonable area which could be regarded as the land appurtenant to the house land liable to wealth tax. For arriving at this figure, the AO is noted to have relied upon the Town Planning Rules. upheld by this Tribunal. On further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held that, it was unnecessary for purpose of the Act to determine extent of land which could be regarded as either reasonably necessary or as being WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 26 :: arbor, trees and the like. The lease also describes the building as (‘Club Chambers’) with a municipal door number. The building is itself a substantial one occupying as many as two grounds. Having regard to he position pertaining at the time when the lease was executed, the first appellate Court and High Court came to the conclusion that the land in this case was appurtenant to the building. We see no reason to disturb this finding. On the other hand, we agree that the use of the land, in the circumstances of this case, was incidental to the enjoyment and beneficial use of the building and, therefore, squarely fell within the definition which has been discussed above.\" From the above, we therefore find that, there is no single prescribed test for ascertaining the land which is to be considered appurtenant to the building but the same would depend on the facts of each case. In this background, we take note of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CWT (257 ITR 718). In the decided the assessee owned a house property consisting of 175 cents of land with built up area of only 1187 sq. meters. The assessee claimed the benefit of the proviso to section 7(4) of Wealth tax Act sidential house. The AO granted exemption in relation extent of 88 cents out of 175 cents, after expressing his view that the same was reasonable area which could be regarded as the land appurtenant to the house and that the balance was vacant urban land liable to wealth tax. For arriving at this figure, the AO is noted to relied upon the Town Planning Rules. The action of the AO was upheld by this Tribunal. On further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held it was unnecessary for purpose of the Act to determine extent of land which could be regarded as either reasonably necessary or as being TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd arbor, trees and the like. The lease also describes the building as (‘Club Chambers’) with a municipal door number. The building is itself a substantial one occupying as many as two grounds. Having regard to he position pertaining at the time when the lease was executed, the first appellate Court and High Court came to the conclusion that the land in this case was appurtenant to the building. We see no reason to e that the use of the land, in the circumstances of this case, was incidental to the enjoyment and beneficial use of the building and, therefore, squarely fell within the hat, there is no single prescribed test for ascertaining the land which is to be considered appurtenant to the building but the same would depend on the facts of each case. In this background, we take note of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the . In the decided the assessee owned a house property consisting of 175 cents of 1187 sq. meters. The assessee claimed the ax Act, 1957 giving The AO granted exemption in relation 175 cents, after expressing his view that the same was reasonable area which could be regarded as the and that the balance was vacant urban land liable to wealth tax. For arriving at this figure, the AO is noted to The action of the AO was upheld by this Tribunal. On further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held it was unnecessary for purpose of the Act to determine extent of land which could be regarded as either reasonably necessary or as being appurtenant to house. It was held that, residential house and that land is being used as ground attached to house for benefit of residents of house, the same remains a part of the house for purpose of proviso to section 7(4) of the Act. Th that the exemption cannot be whittled down arbitrarily by the assessing officer by importing their private notions of reasonableness into provisions of the Act, which has otherwise not been provided in the Act 30. We also take note of another decision of Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. M. Kalpagam (227 ITR 733) in context to exemption under section 54 of the was held that, the entire plot used by the assessee should be cons as one unit and that no part of the land could be separated and treated as a separate asset. In the decided case, the assessee had sold a land occupied with main building, cow sheds, sit outs, pathways and vacant land, whose sale proceeds was used f assessee claimed relief under section 54 of the partially denied the exemption u/s 54 of the bifurcating the land into two parts viz., building along with outs, etc., which was another consisting of vacant land independent, not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the doing this bifurcation, the AO WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 27 :: . It was held that, once it is found that house is a residential house and that land is being used as ground attached to house for benefit of residents of house, the same remains a part of the house for purpose of proviso to section 7(4) of the Act. The Court accordingly that the exemption cannot be whittled down arbitrarily by the assessing officer by importing their private notions of reasonableness into provisions , which has otherwise not been provided in the Act e of another decision of jurisdictional CIT vs Smt. M. Kalpagam (227 ITR 733) context to exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax the entire plot used by the assessee should be cons as one unit and that no part of the land could be separated and treated as In the decided case, the assessee had sold a land main building, cow sheds, sit outs, pathways and vacant whose sale proceeds was used for purchase of new house and the claimed relief under section 54 of the Income Tax partially denied the exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax bifurcating the land into two parts viz., building along with which was considered as appurtenant to main building and another consisting of vacant land holding it to be separate and independent, not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax the AO referred to the limits laid down in TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd once it is found that house is a residential house and that land is being used as ground attached to house for benefit of residents of house, the same remains a part of the house for accordingly held that the exemption cannot be whittled down arbitrarily by the assessing officer by importing their private notions of reasonableness into provisions , which has otherwise not been provided in the Act. jurisdictional Madras High CIT vs Smt. M. Kalpagam (227 ITR 733) where, Income Tax Act 1961, it the entire plot used by the assessee should be considered as one unit and that no part of the land could be separated and treated as In the decided case, the assessee had sold a land main building, cow sheds, sit outs, pathways and vacant or purchase of new house and the Income Tax Act. The AO Income Tax Act by bifurcating the land into two parts viz., building along with cow sheds, sit- as appurtenant to main building and holding it to be separate and Income Tax Act. For own in the Urban Land Ceiling Act. On appeal, this Tribunal, plan, held that as the entire property was utilized by the assessee, the entire plot should be considered as one unit and that no part of the land could be separated and treated as a separate asset. Revenue, the Madras High Court 31. It is noted that, similar issue came up for consideration before ITAT, Jaipur in the case of decided case, the assessee had disclosed building along with appurtenant land of 9735 sq mtr. The AO disputed the land claimed to be appurtenant to the said building and held that 600 sq mtr was reasonable. On appeal this Tribunal observed that, t tennis court, swimming pool and such other facilities the personal and exclusive use of the owners thereof. that, open area is necessary for quiet, peaceful and convenien of the property, depending upon one’s means and taste. Hence, benefit of section 7(4) has to be extended to the open land which is appurtenant to the house property. Following the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the Indore Bench in the case of [1985] Tax. 76 (6)- 57 v. WTO [1987] 20 ITD 310 had to be extended to the remaining 9735 mtrs WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 28 :: On appeal, this Tribunal, after looking into the property plan, held that as the entire property was utilized by the assessee, the entire plot should be considered as one unit and that no part of the land ted and treated as a separate asset. he Madras High Court upheld the order of this Tribunal. It is noted that, similar issue came up for consideration before , Jaipur in the case of WTO Vs N N Atal (64 ITD 348) decided case, the assessee had disclosed building along with appurtenant land of 9735 sq mtr. The AO disputed the land claimed to be appurtenant to the said building and held that 600 sq mtr was reasonable. On appeal this Tribunal observed that, the house also accommodated facilities like a swimming pool and such other facilities in the open land the personal and exclusive use of the owners thereof. It accordingly held pen area is necessary for quiet, peaceful and convenien of the property, depending upon one’s means and taste. Hence, benefit of section 7(4) has to be extended to the open land which is appurtenant to Following the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Smt. M. Kalpagam (10 TTJ the Indore Bench in the case of Sobharam Gambhirmal v. WTO 57 and by the Allahabad Bench in v. WTO [1987] 20 ITD 310, it was held that the benefit of section 7(4) the remaining 9735 mtrs of land also TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd after looking into the property- plan, held that as the entire property was utilized by the assessee, the entire plot should be considered as one unit and that no part of the land ted and treated as a separate asset. On appeal by Tribunal. It is noted that, similar issue came up for consideration before the WTO Vs N N Atal (64 ITD 348). In the decided case, the assessee had disclosed building along with appurtenant land of 9735 sq mtr. The AO disputed the land claimed to be appurtenant to the said building and held that 600 sq mtr was reasonable. On appeal he house also accommodated facilities like a in the open land for It accordingly held pen area is necessary for quiet, peaceful and convenient enjoyment of the property, depending upon one’s means and taste. Hence, benefit of section 7(4) has to be extended to the open land which is appurtenant to Following the view taken by the coordinate Madras 10 TTJ 201) and Sobharam Gambhirmal v. WTO and by the Allahabad Bench in Masood Halin , it was held that the benefit of section 7(4) of land also. 32. We now test the ratio laid down in the above decisions in the given facts of the case before us. In the present case, as noted earlier, the land of 20.63 acres was occupied by Club and other constructions as well, scattered all around, as noted from the sketch map. The said buildings were either leased out or utilized for business purposes and therefore fell within the exception laid down in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. The to comprise inter alia of the following: - Open area which is accessib the building(s) for walks, recreation etc.; - Pathways, lawns, walking trails which are noted to be integ of building; - Open spaces occupied for car parking etc. - Cow sheds constructed for dairy farming business and large open spaces for moving and grazing of animals. - Lawns & gardens for use by the club for social gathering, relaxation etc. 33. Overall therefore, (supra), we are of the 10.64 acres not completely vacant but was occupied by certain constructions, but the said land was only a portion/part out contiguous land of 20.63 acres, in form of open area, and constituted land WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 29 :: We now test the ratio laid down in the above decisions in the given facts of the case before us. In the present case, as noted earlier, the land of 20.63 acres was occupied by fifty-one (51 buildings) along with Ma Club and other constructions as well, scattered all around, as noted from the sketch map. The said buildings were either leased out or utilized for business purposes and therefore fell within the exception laid down in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. The land adjoining these buildings are noted to comprise inter alia of the following:- Open area which is accessible to all the persons residing/ the building(s) for walks, recreation etc.; Pathways, lawns, walking trails which are noted to be integ Open spaces occupied for car parking etc. Cow sheds constructed for dairy farming business and large open spaces for moving and grazing of animals. Lawns & gardens for use by the club for social gathering, relaxation on the given facts, and having regard to decisions we are of the considered view that, not only was the land of 10.64 acres not completely vacant but was occupied by certain constructions, but the said land was only a portion/part out contiguous land of 20.63 acres, in form of open area, and constituted land TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd We now test the ratio laid down in the above decisions in the given facts of the case before us. In the present case, as noted earlier, the land (51 buildings) along with Madras Club and other constructions as well, scattered all around, as noted from the sketch map. The said buildings were either leased out or utilized for business purposes and therefore fell within the exception laid down in land adjoining these buildings are noted le to all the persons residing/working in Pathways, lawns, walking trails which are noted to be integral part Cow sheds constructed for dairy farming business and large open Lawns & gardens for use by the club for social gathering, relaxation on the given facts, and having regard to decisions view that, not only was the land of 10.64 acres not completely vacant but was occupied by certain constructions, but the said land was only a portion/part out of the single contiguous land of 20.63 acres, in form of open area, and constituted land appurtenant to the buildings constructed on the said land enjoyment of people utilizing/occupying these buildings, which was leased or utilized for business authorities had erred in artificially bifurcating land of 10.64 acres from the contiguous plot of 20.63 acres and considering it as separate ‘urban land’ for purposes of wealth tax purposes. 34. Having held so above, since the buildings to which the impugned land has been held to be commercial establishments which are leased out; or (ii) residential properties which are also leased out by the appellant on long term or (iii) utilized by the dairy farming; the assessee has rightly pointed out that it specific exclusion/s set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. We thus hold that, the lower authoritie land of 10.64 acres to wealth tax and therefore reverse the same and direct the AO to exclude/deduct the same from the computation of net wealth for wealth tax purposes. allowed. 35. In view of our above findings, Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of reopening of wealth- prejudice to Ground No.2) objecting to the manner of valuation of the WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 30 :: appurtenant to the buildings constructed on the said land enjoyment of people utilizing/occupying these buildings, which was leased or utilized for business purposes. According to us therefore, the lower authorities had erred in artificially bifurcating land of 10.64 acres from the contiguous plot of 20.63 acres and considering it as separate ‘urban land’ for purposes of wealth tax purposes. above, since the buildings to which the impugned has been held to be appurtenant thereto, are– (i) in the nature of commercial establishments which are leased out; or (ii) residential properties which are also leased out by the appellant on long term or (iii) utilized by the assessee for its own business purposes such as the assessee has rightly pointed out that it specific exclusion/s set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. We thus hold that, the lower authorities were unjustified in assessing the impugned to wealth tax and therefore reverse the same and direct the AO to exclude/deduct the same from the computation of net wealth for wealth tax purposes. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is therefore In view of our above findings, Ground No. 1 challenging the validity -tax assessment and Ground No. 3 (raised without prejudice to Ground No.2) objecting to the manner of valuation of the TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd appurtenant to the buildings constructed on the said land for the enjoyment of people utilizing/occupying these buildings, which was leased purposes. According to us therefore, the lower authorities had erred in artificially bifurcating land of 10.64 acres from the contiguous plot of 20.63 acres and considering it as separate ‘urban land’ above, since the buildings to which the impugned (i) in the nature of commercial establishments which are leased out; or (ii) residential properties which are also leased out by the appellant on long term basis; for its own business purposes such as the assessee has rightly pointed out that it falls under the specific exclusion/s set out in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. We thus hold s were unjustified in assessing the impugned to wealth tax and therefore reverse the same and direct the AO to exclude/deduct the same from the computation of net Ground No. 2 of the appeal is therefore In view of our above findings, Ground No. 1 challenging the validity tax assessment and Ground No. 3 (raised without prejudice to Ground No.2) objecting to the manner of valuation of the land has become academic in natur of the assessee for AY 2004 36. Our above findings shall by the assessee for subsequent AYs 2005 Nos.8/Chny/2023 and 9/Chny delete the addition made in respect of the impugned land by way of taxable asset to the net wealth of the assessee for these AYs as well. The assessee thus succeeds in these appeals. 37. In the result, all these wealth tax allowed. Order pronounced on the Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुना था ) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA लेखा सद\t /ACCOUNTANT चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 19th March, 20 TLN आदेश क\r \u000eितिलिप अ\u0014ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ\u0012/Appellant 2. \u0013\u0014थ\u0012/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CWT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0013ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001fफाईल/GF WTA No (AYs20 M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd :: 31 :: land has become academic in nature. Accordingly, the wealth tax appeal of the assessee for AY 2004-05 stands allowed. Our above findings shall mutatis mutandis apply to the appeals filed by the assessee for subsequent AYs 2005-06 & 2006 Nos.8/Chny/2023 and 9/Chny/2023 respectively. The AO shall accordingly delete the addition made in respect of the impugned land by way of taxable asset to the net wealth of the assessee for these AYs as well. The assessee thus succeeds in these appeals. In the result, all these wealth tax appeals of the assessee Order pronounced on the 19th day of March, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/ ) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. (ABY T. VARKEY \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER , 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. TA Nos.7 to 9/Chny/2023 2004-05 to 2006-07) M/s. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd . Accordingly, the wealth tax appeal apply to the appeals filed 06 & 2006-07 in WTA ively. The AO shall accordingly delete the addition made in respect of the impugned land by way of taxable asset to the net wealth of the assessee for these AYs as well. The appeals of the assessee stand , in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. "