Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Jalandhar V. The Wealth tax Officer, Jalandhar

MA 63/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0740 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI JADEJA ITP
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

1 PIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W.T.A. NOS.15 TO 18(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2005-06 PAN :ABDPB3460D BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, BAWA COLONY, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2005-06 PAN :ABDPB3460D BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, BAWA COLONY, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.19 TO 21(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2004-05 PAN :ABBPB3827G SMT. POONAM BAWA W/O BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER , BAWA COLONY, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.22 TO 24(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2004-05 PAN :AIXPS5224M 2 SH. AMANDEEP SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, BAWA COLONY, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.25 & 26(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 & 2003-04 PAN :AEEPB0364C SH.GAGANDEEP SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, BAWA COLONY, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.27 TO 32(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2007-08 PAN :BOUPS7610R GURDIAL SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, S/O SH.KEHAR SINGH, MUKTSAR, WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.33 TO 38(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2007-08 PAN :BISPS8264H SH.PARAMJIT SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. GURDIAL SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.39 TO 44(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002-03 TO 2007-08 PAN :ASWPK5263B SMT. GURMIT KAUR, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, W/O SH.PARAMJIT SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 3 W.T.A. NOS.45 & 46(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN :BNVPS6240R SH.GURCHARAN SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. KEHAR SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.47 & 48(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN :AYMPK2027P SMT. PARKASH KAUR, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, W/O SH. GURCHARAN SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTS AR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.49 & 50(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN :AGXPS3139B SH.MANDEEP SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. GURCHARAN SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTS AR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) W.T.A. NOS.51 & 52(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN :BSDPS6122D SH.SIRBEERINDER SINGH, VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. GURCHARAN SINGH, MUKTSAR. WARD 2(2), MUKTS AR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY:SH. ASHWANI JADEJA, ITP RESPONDENT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19/07/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:23/07/2013 4 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE 42 APPEALS OF 12 DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE CWT(A), BATHINDA EACH DATED 21.03.2013 FOR DIFFEREN T ASSESSMENT YEARS, AS MENTIONED HEREINBELOW ARE HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS AN D THEREFORE, WE TAKE UP ALL THE 42 APPEALS OF 12 DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR DI FFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE : S.NO. W.T.A.NO. A.Y. NAME OF THE PARTY CWT (A) DATE OF ORDER 1 TO 4 15 TO 18(ASR)/13 2002-03 TO 05-06 BAWA YADWINDER SINGH BATHINDA 21.03.2013 4 TO 8 11 TO 14(ASR)/13 -DO- -DO- -DO- -DO- 9 TO 11 19 TO 21(ASR)/13 2002-03 TO 04-05 SMT.POONAM BAWA -DO- -DO- 12 TO 14 22 TO 24(ASR)/13 -DO- SH.AMANDEEP SINGH -DO- -DO- 15,16 25 & 26(ASR)/13 2002-03 TO 03-04 GAGANDEEP SINGH -DO- -DO- 17 TO 22 27 TO 32(ASR)/13 2002-03 TO 07-08 GURDIAL SINGH -DO- -DO- 23 TO 28 33 TO 38(ASR)/13 2002-03 TO 07-08 PARAMJIT SINGH -DO- -DO- 29 TO 34 39 TO 44(ASR)/13 -DO- SMT.GURMIT KAUR -DO- -DO- 35 & 36 45 & 46(ASR)/13 2006-07 & 07-08 GURCHARAN SINGH -DO- -DO- 5 37 & 38 47 & 48(ASR)/13 -DO- SMT.PARKASH KAUR -DO- -DO- 39 & 40 49 & 50(ASR)/13 -DO- MANDEEP SINGH -DO- -DO- 41 & 42 51 & 52(ASR)/13 -DO- SIRBEERINDER SINGH -DO- -DO- 2. THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS TAKEN IN ALL THE 42 APPEAL S ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CWT (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW I N DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER, TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS URBAN LAND LIAB LE TO WEALTH TAX. 2. THE LD. CWT (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TREATING THE LAND USED FO R AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURE LAND IN TH E RECORDS OF THE GOVT., AS URBAN LAND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA) WHILE D ISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAW ON THI S ISSUE HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AG RICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVT. AND USED FOR AGRICULT URAL PURPOSES HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LA ND. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE ANY OTHER G ROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF BAWA YADWINDER SINGH, MUKTSAR, IN WTA NO.15(ASR)/2013 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND OUR DECISION HEREINBELOW SHALL BE APPLICABLE IDENTICALLY IN ALL OTHER APPEALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 6 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF BAWA YADWIN DER SINGH, MUKTSAR, IN WTA NO.15(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE W.T.O. ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF NET WEALTH ON 02. 12.2009 DECLARING THE FOLLOWING IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AS EXEMPT:- DESCRIPTION OF ASSETS REASONS FOR THE CLAIM AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILL. BIR SARKAR NOT BEING UR BAN LAND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT VILL. BIR SARKAR ONE HOUSE IS EXEMPT CASH IN HAND(AS PER BOOKS) RS. 172923 CLAIM EXEMPT STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED, SERVED AND COMPLIED WITH. SH. YADWINDER SINGH BAWA ALONGWITH SH. ASHWANI JUNEJA, ITP, ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED THE REQUIS ITE DETAILS AND INFORMATION. FROM THE DETAILS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTIES SHOWN IN THE RETURN ARE ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR WEA LTH TAX BECAUSE THESE LANDS ARE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF MUKTSAR TO WN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO STATE THE REASONS FOR CLAI MING THESE ASSETS AS EXEMPT AND ALSO TO STATE AS TO WHY THE VALUE OF THE SE ASSETS BE NOT ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF VALUE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN REPLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT W.E.F. 1993-94 THE WEALTH TAX HAS BEEN LEVIED ON NON-PRODUCTIVE ASSETS ONLY BY EXCLUDING PRODUCTIVE ASSETS FROM THE AMBIT OF LEVY OF WEALTH TAX AND THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. HARI SINGH THAT AGRICULTURAL IS A BUSINESS MEANING THEREBY THA T THE AGRICULTURE LAND IS A PRODUCTIVE ASSETS NOT LIA BLE FOR WEALTH TAX. 2. THAT AS FAR AS LAND AT VILL. BIR SARKAR THE SA ME IS NOT LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX BECAUSE VILLAGE BIR SARKAR HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICATION 7 DATED 06.01.1994. THUS THE SAME IS NOT AN URBAN LAND AS NOTIFIED U/S 2(14) AND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. KHAZAN SINGH IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AGRI. LAND WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.1994 IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET MEANING THEREBY THE SAME IS NOT URBAN LAND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 3. THE LEVY OF WEALTH TAX ON AGRI. LAND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 4. THAT THE CASH IN HAND IS EXEMPT BECAUSE THE SAME HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE VALUE OF LANDS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF COLLECTORS RAT E AS AGAINST THE MARKET RATES. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO CLAIMING THESE ASSETS AS EXEMPT ARE NOT ACCEPTABL E BECAUSE IN THE DEFINITION OF ASSETS LIABLE FOR WEALTH TAX, U RBAN LAND HAS BEEN INCLUDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. THE URBAN LAND HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT ITSELF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- (B) URBAN LAND MEANS LAND SITUATED:- (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREAS COMMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE, OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE 8 BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE VALUATION OF DATE; OR (II) IN ANY AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE, NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I), AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBANIZATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE 4. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE EITHER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MUKTSAR TOWN OR WITHIN ONE K M. AWAY FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF MUKTSAR TOWN AND HENCE VALUE O F THESE ASSETS IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF W.T. ACT. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT BECAUS E THE LANDS ARE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR WITHIN THE SPECIFI ED LIMIT AND HENCE ARE LIABLE FOR WEALTH TAX. FURTHER THE FACT S OF THE CASE OF DECISION QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1973 TO 1975 AND THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., COCHIN BEN CH IN THE CASE OF MEERA JACOB VS. WTO [2007] 14 SOT 486 HELD AS UNDER:- URBAN LAND IS AN ASSETS WHETHER IT IS AGRICULTU RE LAND OR NON-AGRICULTURE LAND THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. FURTHER HELD AS UNDER :- FROM THE ASSTT. YEAR 1993-94, THE WT ACT HAS UNDE RGONE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. THE DEFINITION OF ASSETS IN S. 2(E) WAS RE PLACED BY S. 2(EA). IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY INSERTED DEFINITION OF ASSET I .E., S. 2(EA), CERTAIN SPECIFIC ASSETS ARE BROUGHT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ASSET AND URBAN LAND IS ONE OF THEM. THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND IS GIVEN IN CLAUSE TO EXPLN. 1 TO S. 2(EA) AND AS PER THE SAID EXPLAN ATION ANY LAND SITUATION IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN TH E JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LES S THAN 10,000/- IS AN URBAN LAND. IN OUR OPINION, NO DISTINCTION IS M ADE IN RESPECT OF 9 AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. THOUGH THE LEGISLATURE HAS EXCLUDED SOME OF THE LANDS THOUGH THEY ARE OTHERWI SE URBAN LAND, BUT AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT EXCLUDED. IN OUR OPINION, THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW AND THE SAME IS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CWT(A). THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. GROUND N O. 2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. 5. THE LD. CWT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E W.T.O. AND HIS FINDINGS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I FIND THAT ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR IN THE CA SE OF SH. GURCHARAN SINGH S/O KEHAR SINGH MUKTSAR IN APPEAL NO. 136 TO 140 IT- CIT(A)/BTI/09-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 10/08/2009, WHIC H WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR, IN WTA NO. 28- 32(ASR)/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 26/11/2009. THE FIND INGS OF THE HON'BLE BENCH IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE P ERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE I.T.A.T. , AMRITSAR BENCH AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF CHAK BIR SARKAR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN NOTIFICATIO N DATED 06.01.1994 BY WHICH DISTANCE OF 1 KM. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS O F MUKTSAR IN ALL DIRECTIONS HAS BEEN NOTIFIED U/S 2(14)(III)(B). TH E A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS RELIEF ON THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. BENCH, CHAN DIGARH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. KHAZAN SINGH IN I.T.ACT, 1961 NO. 53 (CHD) /2005 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CH ANDIGARH AND COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. IN PARA 4 OF THE ORDE R THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE JU RISDICTION OF A VILLAGE 10 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED IN THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AND NO CAPITAL GAINS CAN BE LEVIED ON THE SALE OF THE SAME. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLEBLE I.T. A.T. IN PARA 4 OF THE ORDER BUT I FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING WORDS HAS BE EN USED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED.1994:- 29. MUKTSAR -----AREA UPTO A DISTANCE OF 1 KM. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS IN ALL DIRECTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND IN Q UESTION WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE CHAK BI R SARKAR IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF WITHIN 1 KM. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMI T OF MUKTSAR. I FIND THAT SINCE THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE NOTIFICATION I S VERY SIMPLE, CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION HA S TO BE APPLIED. EVEN THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION CAN NOT BE APPLIED WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR, SIMPLE AND THE MEANING OF THE WORD IS APPARENT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.C. BUDHARAJA & CO. & ANR. (1993) 114 CTR (SUPREME COURT) 420 : (1993) 204 ITR 412 ( SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE PRINCIPLE OF ADOPTING A LIBERAL INTERPRETATIO N WHICH ADVANCES THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF BENEFICENT CANNOT BE CAR RIED TO THE EXTENT OF DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE US ED IN THE ENACTMENT. IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE OR PERMISSIB LE FOR THE COURT TO REWRITE THE SECTION OR SUBSTITUTE WORDS OF ITS OWN FOR THE ACTUAL WORDS EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE NAME OF GIVING EFFECT OF THE SUPPOSED UNDERLYING OBJECT. AFTER ALL, THE UNDERLY ING OBJECT OF ANY PROVISION HAS TO BE GATHERED ON A REASONABLE INTER PRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE. I FIND THAT THE INTENTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T LEGISLATURE IN NOTIFYING THE AREA BEYOND THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS TO PUT THE SAME IN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET FOR LEVYING CAPITAL GA IN TAX AND TREATING THE SAME AS URBAN LAND TO LEVY WEALTH TAX WAS ON ACCOU NT OF THE URBANIZATION OF THE AREA CONCERNED AND THE SIMPLE AND PLAIN LANGUAGE HAS BEEN USED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06.01.1994 . THE NOTIFICATION PROVIDES THAT ANY AREA UPTO A DISTANCE OF 1 KM. FR OM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF MUKTSAR IN ALL DIRECTIONS SHALL FALL WIT HIN THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(EA) AND I FIND THAT THE AGRICULTURE 11 LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT IS WITHIN 1 KM. FROM T HE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF MUKTSAR. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE SAME IS LO CATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF VILLAGE CHAK BIR SARKAR WHICH IS G RAM PANCHAYAT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LAW DISCUSSED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT IS AN URBAN LAND LIABL E TO WEALTH TAX AND THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED THE WEALTH TAX ON THE SAME. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., A MRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR, DISCUSSED (SUPRA), I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT IS AN URBAN LAND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA ) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 AND THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING TH E SAME AS TAXABLE ASSET. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY BOTH THE PARTIES PR ESENT BEFORE US THAT THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX AC T, 1957 WHERE CLAUSE (B) TO EXPLANATION (1) HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2014 BUT THE WORDS IN BOLD LETTER S BELOW HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT I.E. FROM 01. 04.1993. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: (B) URBAN LAND MEANS LAND SITUATE- (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURI SDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUN ICIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA CO MMITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE, OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONMENT B OARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND; OR II) IN ANY AREA WITHIN THE DISTANCE, MEASURED AER IALLY,- 12 (1) NOT BEING MORE THAN TWO KILOMETERS, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MOR E THAN TEN THOUSAND BUT NOT EXCEEDING ONE LAKH; OR (II) NOT BEING MORE THAN SIX KILOMETERS, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MOR E THAN ONE LAKH BUT NOT EXCEEDING TEN LAKH; OR (III) NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD R EFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN LAKH, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTUR AL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSES OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PE RMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA I N WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHI CH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE A UTHORITY OR ANY UNUSED LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INDUSTRIAL PU RPOSES FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITI ON BY HIM OR ANY LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY HIM. EXPLANATION- FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (B) OF EXP LANATION-1, POPULATION MEANS THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUB LISHED BEFORE THE DATE OF VALUATION. 7. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID SUBSTITUTION OF THE EXPLANATION BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE URBAN LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(E A)(V) OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 DOES NOT INCLUDE FOR THE WEALTH TAX PURPOSES - FIRSTLY, THE LAND 13 CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF T HE GOVT. AND THE LAND WHICH IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, SECONDLY THE LA ND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED, THIRDLY THE LA ND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, FOURTHLY ANY UNUSED LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR I NDUSTRIAL PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITIO N BY HIM AND FIFTHLY ANY LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE FOR A P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY HIM. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1993 IN THE WE ALTH TAX ACT, AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WHETHER THE SAID LAND WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF WEALTH HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OR NOT HAS TO BE EXAMINED. THERE FORE, IN PURSUANCE OF AMENDMENT THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2013, AS MENTIONED H EREINABOVE, WHICH AMENDMENT IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE, WE FIND IT A PPROPRIRATE TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE W.T.O. TO EXAMINE THE DOC UMENTS LEAD BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED IN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS MENT IONED HEREINABOVE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE SAID AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 2(EA) WITH RETROSPECTIVE E FFECT 01.04.1993. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 14 ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN WTA NO.15(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. SINCE THE FACTS IN ALL OTHER APPEALS MENTIONED H EREINABOVE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF BAWA YADWINDE R SINGH, IN WTA NO.15(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03, THEREFORE, OU R DECISION HEREINABOVE IN THE CASE OF BAWA YADWINDER SINGH IN WTA NO.15(AS R)/2013 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE PRESENT APPEALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF WEALTH TAX ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ALL THE ASSESSEES IN WTA NOS. 11 TO 52(ASR)/2013 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD JULY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23RD JULY, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ALL THE ASSESSEES: 2. THE WTO WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR 3. THE CWT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CWT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER