MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, Jaipur V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, Jaipur

WTA 1/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3555 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL CIT DHK
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ W.T.A. NO.01/JP/17 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, 211-212, SHALIMAR COMPLEX, CHURCH ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACWT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO.: AAXPG7461N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRHDH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. CHANDEL (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH R KJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/07/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CWT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 09.01.2017 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,06,563/-IN RETURNED WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPR OVED/AGRICULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS HAVING MARKET VALUE O F RS. 1,60,06,563/- AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPTED BY ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THO SE ASSETS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF LD. AO WHEREBY HE HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF DEBTS OF RS. 73,56,129/- CLAIM ED TO BE UTILIZED W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 2 FOR ACQUIRING THE TAXABLE ASSETS INCLUDED IN THE N ET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN ON 01.05.2013 DECLARING WEALTH OF RS. 39,19,500/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.03.2014 ASSESSING THE TOTAL WEALTH O F ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,99,26,063/- AS AGAINST RETURNED WEALTH OF RS. 39, 19,500/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,06,563/- TREATING UNAPPROVED/A GRICULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXABLE ASSETS WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT BY ASSESSEE U/S 2(EA)(V) EXPLANATION 1(B) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT ON THE GROUN D THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THOSE ASSETS AS PER RULES AND RE GULATIONS OF JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. FURTHER THE LD. AO NOT DEDUC TED THE LOANS/DEBT OF RS. 73,65,129/- CLAIMED TO BE UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRIN G THE EXEMPTED ASSETS. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND N OW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. FIRSTLY, WE REFER TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN H IS ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- FOR LAND TO BECOME EXEMPT, EITHER IT SHOULD BE CLA SSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER ANY LAW IN FORCE. LAW MEANS STATUTORY LAW AND DOES NOT INCLUDE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF JDA. FOR CONSTRUCTION NOT PERMITTED, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME STAY ORD ER BY CENTRAL GOVT OR STATE GOVT OR COURT AND MERELY NON ALLOTMEN T LETTER BY JDA OR NON APPROVAL BY JDA DOES NOT CLASSIFY IT UNDER THE CATEGORY OF CONSTRUCTION NOT PERMITTED. IF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D BENEFIT OF THIS EXEMPTION, THEN MOST OF THE CITY OF JAIPUR WOULD CO ME UNDER THE AMBIT OF CONSTRUCTION NOT PERMITTED AND THE ENTIR E SPIRIT OF WEALTH TAX ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED. SIMILARLY IN CASES OF FARMHOUSE AT DHANAKYA, ALTHOU GH THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS, BUT NO AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITY AS SUCH IS CARRIED OUT OF THEM. THE ACT USES THE WORD AND WH EN DEFINING W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 3 EXEMPTION CLEARLY STATING THAT BOTH CLASSIFICATION AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CARRYING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IS NECESS ARY. HENCE IT IS ALSO TREATED AS A TAXABLE ASSET. SUBJECT TO THE DISCUSSION HELD ABOVE, THE ENTIRE LA NDS SHOWN ABOVE ARE TREATED AS TAXABLE WEALTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF WE ALTH TAX ACT. 4. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (IV) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WERE 3 FARM HOUSES AND A NUMBER OF PLOTS SITUATED AT SHALIMAR NAGAR, RAMAGARIYA, SRI R AM VIHAR AND SHIV NAGAR, JAIPUR. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE HERE THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION B TO SECTION 2(EA)(V) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AS UNDER: URBAN LAND MEANS LAND SITUATE- (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA 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 BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE VALUATION DATE; OR (II) IN ANY AREA WITH SUCH DISTANCE, NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALIT Y OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I), AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBA NISATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURA L LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE S OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH L AND IS SITUATED OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CO NSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OR ANY UN USED LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD O F TWO YEARS FROM W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 4 THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY HIM OR ANY LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN TRADE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE D ATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY HIM. (V) THUS, THE PLOTS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE CITY OF JA IPUR ARE EXEMPT IF CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED ON SUCH LAND. IT IS NOTE D THAT SECTION 17(1) OF THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT REQUIRE THE PERMISSION OF JDA FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ON SUCH PLOTS BU T IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE PERMISSION C OULD BE GRANTED BY THE JDA SUBJECT TO FULFILMENT OF PRESCRIBED TERMS A ND CONDITIONS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE JDA HAS PROHIBITED CONSTRUC TION ACTIVITIES ON SUCH LANDS. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF MARS HOTELS & RESORTS (P.) LTD. VS DCWT [2012] 21 TAXMANN.COM168 (MUM.), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT THAT (HEAD NOTE): SECTION 2(EA), READ WITH SECTION 7, OF THE WEALTH- TAX ACT, 1957- ASSETS- ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1998-99-ASSESSE E HOTEL ACQUIRED 12 ACRES OF LAND IN 1995-SAID LAND WAS CLA SSIFIED AS RESERVED LAND ON WHICH DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION WAS BARR ED UNDER STATE TOWN PLANNING ACT LATER ON, BY A NOTIFICATION, 50 PER CENT OF LAND WAS ALLOWED TO BE RESERVED FOR PARK AND REMAINING 5 0 PER CENT WAS ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED INTO A HOTEL ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT SINCE CONSTRUCTION WAS BARRED UNDER A LAW, LAND IN QUESTI ON FELL UNDER STATUTORY EXCEPTION FROM BEING TREATED AS AN ASSET AND, THEREFORE, NOT CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TAX WHETHER SINCE CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN NOTIFICATION WERE NOT IN NATURE OF PROHIBITION BUT PERMISSION WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SU CH NOTIFICATION DID NOT RENDER LAND FALL UNDER EXCEPTION AS ENCUMBERATE D UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 2(EA) HELD, YES [ IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE](EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) (VI) IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS WTO [2012] 21 TA XMANN.COM 36 (DELHI), IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE ITAT THAT: THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGN ED LANDS WERE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SHAMLI. UNDER SECTIO N 2(EA), URBAN LAND IS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX. WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1993, THE DEFINITION OF ASSET HAS CHANGED. PRIOR TO IT, THE AGRICULTURE LANDS WERE EXEMPT FROM WEALT H TAX. HOWEVER, FROM 1-4-1993, ANY URBAN LAND WHETHER IT IS AGRICUL TURE LAND OR W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 5 OTHERWISE IS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX IF IT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSTRUCT ION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON AGRICULTURE LAND IS DEVOID OF AN Y MERIT. THERE IS NO BAR FOR CONSTRUCTING FARM HOUSE ON AGRICULTURAL LAN D AND AGRICULTURIST NORMALLY KEEPS SOME STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO STORE AGR ICULTURE IMPLEMENTS, FOR KEEPING ANIMALS, STORAGE OF FOOD GR AINS AND ALSO RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW DOES NOT MEAN THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND WILL FALL UNDER SUCH CATEGORY. THERE ARE CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS UNDER WHICH CONSTRUCTION ON URBAN LANDS LIKE LANDS NEAR AIRPORT , AIR BASE OR MILITARY CANTONMENT AREA ETC. WHERE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMITTED, WILL FALL UNDER THIS EXCEPTION AND NOT THE AGRICULT URAL LAND. SUCH LANDS WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX. SINCE AGRICULTURA L LAND IS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX AS URBAN LAND, COMMISSIONER WEALTH TAX ( APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER THOUGH FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND LI ABLE TO WEALTH TAX AS URBAN LAND. [PARA 10] (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.[PARA11] (VII) IT WAS ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE AGRICULTURE LANDS WERE USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES BY THE APP ELLANT ITSELF BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUPPORTED ITS CONTENTION WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPEL LANT ON SECTION 17(1) AND 17(5) OF THE JDA ACT IS ALSO FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AS THESE DO NOT PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION ACT IVITIES ON SUCH LANDS/PLOT, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER. THE REFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIF IED IN MAKING ADDITION OF WEALTH AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,60,06,563/- T O THE NET WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT AND THUS THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAI NED. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE PLOTS/LANDS WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED ASSETS AR E EITHER AGRICULTURE LANDS OR THE PLOTS FOR WHICH JDA ALLOTMENT LETTER W ERE NOT ISSUED OR COLONIES WERE NOT APPROVED BY JDA. SINCE AS PER RULES AND RE GULATIONS OF THE JDA THE CONSTRUCTION ARE ONLY PERMISSIBLE ON THE LANDS/ PLOTS FOR WHICH THE JDA W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 6 HAS ISSUED THE ALLOTMENT LETTER AND IN ABSENCE OF T HAT NO CONSTRUCTION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON SUCH LANDS/PLOTS AND IF ANY CONST RUCTION IS CARRIED OUT THEREON WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM JDA/PER MISSION OF JDA, THE SAME WILL BE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND JDA MAY DEMOL ISH IT. SINCE AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1(B) TO THE SECTION 2(EA)(IV) OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 PROVIDE THAT URBAN LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED. 4.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JAIPUR DEVELO PMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 WAS ENACTED UNDER THE RAJASTHAN STATE LEGISLAT URE AND RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON 12 TH DAY OCTOBER, 1982 AND HENCE BECOME THE STATUTORY LAW. THE SECTION 17(1) OF THE JAIPUR DEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 RELATED TO TAKING PERMISSION FROM JDA BEFORE M AKING DEVELOPMENT IN JAIPUR REGION IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, EXCEPT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORIT Y, NO AUTHORITY OR PERSON SHALL UNDERTAKE ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE JAIPUR R EGION OF THE TYPE AS THE AUTHORITY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME SPECIFY, BY NOTIFIC ATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, AND WHICH IS LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE JAIPUR REGION. IN CASE ANY PERSON UNDERTAKES CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPM ENT WITHOUT TAKING PROPER APPROVAL, THE JDA SHALL HAVE POWER TO DEMOLI SH OR REMOVE SUCH CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT. THE SECTION 17(5) OF THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1982 IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH:- IN CASE ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY DOES ANYTHING CONT RARY TO THE DECISION GIVEN UNDER THIS SECTION, THE AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE POWER TO PULL DOWN, DEMOLISH OR REMOVE ANY DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN CONTR ARY TO SUCH DECISION W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 7 AND RECOVER THE COST OF SUCH PULLING DOWN, DEMOLITI ON OR REMOVAL FROM THE PERSONS OR AUTHORITY CONCERNED. IT IS CLEAR FROM ABOVE SUBMISSION THAT IN UNAPPROVE D SCHEMES OR WHERE JDA PATTA HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED NO CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY ANY PERSON. SINCE THE ASSESSEES PLOTS/LANDS ARE NOT APPROVED B Y JDA OR JDA PATTA HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED, THESE PLOTS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE FO R CONSTRUCTION. FURTHER, THE JDA PATTA IS NOT ISSUED, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE L AND IS VEST IN GOVERNMENT. THIS MAY BE SEEN FROM FOLLOWING:- CATEGORY OF LAND OWNER ASSESSEES STATUS AGRICULTURAL LAND GOVERNMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASE RIGHT TO CULTIVATE. 90B COMPLETED GOVERNMENT. AS PER SECTION 90B/90A FOR RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE THE LAND VEST IN GOVERNMENT AND IN REVENUE RECORDS THE NAME OF JDA IS ENTERED AS OWNER THE ASSESSEE HAS POSSESSION HOLDER. JDA PATTA ISSUE OWNER ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE CONSTRUCTION I N FIRST TWO CATEGORIES OF LAND AND THE FIRST TWO CATEGORY OF LAND ARE NOT PER MISSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE, AND OTHER UTILITIES AN D FACILITIES IN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAVE DIRECT NEXUS WITH AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES . IN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 8 INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION EITHER RESIDENTIAL OR COMM ERCIAL CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 4.2 THE LEGISLATURE USED THE WORD NOT PERMISSIBLE AND IT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS PROHIBITED. WHEN THE STAY IS GRANTE D ON LAND OR THE LAND IS UNDER ACQUISITION, THEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBI TED. BUT WHEN THE LAND IS UNAPPROVED, THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 4.3 THE LD CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MARS HOTELS & RESORTS (P) LTD VS DCWT. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL BUILDING WAS PERMISSIBLE IF THE CONDITION OF DEVELO PMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK IS COMPLIED WITH. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WOR THWHILE TO REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS OF HONBLE ITAT IN PARA 7.2 AND 7.3 AS UND ER:- 7.2 VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.11.1992 UNDER THE M RPA 1966, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS RESERVED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% FOR PARK AND THE REMAINING 50% OF THE LAND TO BE DELETED AND INCLUDED IN C-I Z ONE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF HOTEL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS T HAT THE PARTIES SHOULD DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE PARK AND SHALL KEEP THEM F OR GENERAL PUBLIC DURING RESTRICTED HOURS. 7.3 THUS, VIDE THE SAID NOTIFICATION, 50% LAND WAS KEPT AS RESERVED FOR PARK TO BE DEVELOPED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBJECT TO THE SAID CONDITIONS, THE REMAINING 50% OF THE LAND WAS DELET ED FROM THE RESERVED CATEGORY AND ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR HOTEL. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION VIDE ORDER O F THE COMPANY LAW BOARD DATED 30.01.1995 WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSE E ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION AFTER THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.1992 AND THEREFORE, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION. W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 9 4.4 AS REGARD AGRICULTURAL LAND MENTIONED AT S.NO. 1 TO 3 IN TABLE AT PAGE 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER TOTAL VALUE 10,45,191,+5,54, 060+2,85,000 TOTAL 18,84,251/- WE SUBMIT THAT THESE WERE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION OVER THESE LANDS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CULTIVATING THESE LANDS THROUGH THE HE LP OF OTHER NEIGHBOURING FARMERS BUT HE COULD NOT EARN INCOME FROM THESE LAN DS. FOR BEING THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, THE GENERATION OF INCOME I S NOT NECESSARY. FURTHER, ON THESE LANDS CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND THE SE WERE NOT CONVERTED INTO RESIDENTIAL. THE LD. CWT(A) RELIES ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS. WTO. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THIS LAND FAL LS IN UP WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT AND JDA AC T ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 4.5 THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMRIT LAL JINDAL & SONS H UF VS WTO REPORTED IN 327 ITR 161 (P&H) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONC E NO CONSTRUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW THEN SUCH LAND WOULD NOT BE URB AN LAND. THEREFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION/CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,06,563/- IN RETURNED WEALT H OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING UNAPPROVED/AGRICULTURE PLOTS/LANDS AS TAXA BLE ASSETS HAVING MARKET VALUE OF RS. 1,60,06,563/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSID ERATION RELATES TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEES HAVING VARIOUS PIECES OF LAN D/PLOTS FALLS UNDER THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(EA)(V) READ WITH EXPL ANATION (B) SO AS TO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND WHICH IS O THERWISE EXIGIBLE FOR WEALTH W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 10 TAX. THE EXPLANATION (B) TO CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(EA )(V) DEFINES URBAN LAND AS UNDER: URBAN LAND MEANS LAND SITUATE- (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA 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 BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE VALUATION DATE; OR (II) IN ANY AREA WITH SUCH DISTANCE, MEASURED AERIA LLY, NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES 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, URBANISATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSID ERATIONS, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZE TTE, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURA L LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AR EA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPRO PRIATE AUTHORITY OR ANY UNUSED LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INDUSTR IAL PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITIO N 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. 6. THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE TO DEFINITION OF URBAN L AND AS RELEVANT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES CONTAINS TWO LIMBS. FIRSTLY, IT TALKS ABO UT LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THUS BOTH THE CONDITIONS NEED TO BE SATIS FIED CUMULATIVELY. SECONDLY, IT TALKS ABOUT LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 11 PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FOR CE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED. 7. THE LANGUAGE OF BOTH THE LIMBS IS PLAIN AND SIMP LE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE INVOCATION OF THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE, THE INITIAL ONUS LIES ON HIM TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH VERIFIABLE EVIDE NCE THAT THE SPECIFIED PIECES OF LAND/PLOT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF BO TH THESE LIMBS. THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD AR IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE PLOTS/LANDS WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED ASSETS ARE EITHER AGRICULTU RE LANDS OR THE PLOTS FOR WHICH JDA ALLOTMENT LETTER WERE NOT ISSUED OR COLON IES WERE NOT APPROVED BY JDA. SINCE AS PER RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE J DA THE CONSTRUCTION ARE ONLY PERMISSIBLE ON THE LANDS/PLOTS FOR WHICH THE J DA HAS ISSUED THE ALLOTMENT LETTER AND IN ABSENCE OF THAT NO CONSTRUC TION CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON SUCH LANDS/PLOTS AND IF ANY CONSTRUCTION IS CARRIED OUT THEREON WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM JDA/PERMISSION OF JDA, THE SAME WILL BE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND JDA MAY DEMOLISH IT. IN OUR VIEW, THESE ARE MERELY CONTENTIONS AND HOWEVER STRONG THESE CONTENTIONS MA Y BE, UNLESS AND UNTIL THESE CONTENTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY DEMONSTRABLE EVI DENCE WHICH BRINGS OUT THE ACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE PRESENTLY NOT GOING INTO THE DEBA TE OF PROHIBITION VS PERMISSION FOR CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION ON THESE A SSETS AS SOUGHT BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THERE ARE NUMBER OF PIECES OF LAND/PLOTS WHICH ARE UNDER CONS IDERATION. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THESE CON TENTIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THESE PIECES OF LAND/PLOTS. IN ABSENCE OF THAT, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE T HE SAME A FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO F ILE NECESSARY INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS SPECIFYING THE CORRECT POSITI ON IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PIECES OF LAND/PLOTS IN THE LAND REVENUE RECORD S, AND BASIS THAT, LET THE AO VERIFY WITH THE JDA THE STATUS OF THESE LAND ASS ETS AND THE POSITION W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 12 REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION ON THESE LAND ASSETS AS ON THE VALUATION DATE IN TERMS OF EITHER TOTAL PROHIBITION OR PERMIT TED AFTER FOLLOWING PRESCRIBED RULES AND REGULATIONS AS PER THE JDA ACT AND RELATED REGULATIONS IN FORCE AND TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, DE CIDE AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO A ND THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CWT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEBT OF RS 73,56,129 CLAIMED TO BE UTILISED FOR ACQUIRING THE EXEMPTED ASSETS. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED TOTAL DEBTS AS UNDER:- SECURED LOAN = 77,46,148 UNSECURED LOAN = 80,78,769 SUNDRY CREDITORS= 7,08,000 OTHER LIABILITIES = 84,13,457 TOTAL 2,49,46,374 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 2(M) O F THE ACT FOR DEBTS INCURRED IN RELATION TO TAXABLE ASSETS AND EXEMPTED ASSETS ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEBT OF RS. 12,64,665/- AGAINST THE TAXABLE ASSETS AND DEBT OF RS. 73,56,129/- AGAINST THE EXEM PTED ASSETS. THE DEBT CLAIMED AGAINST THE TAXABLE ASSETS WAS ALLOWED BY L D. AO. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO TREATED THE EXEMPTED ASSETS AS TAXABLE WEALTH BU T DEBT CLAIMED AGAINST THESE ASSETS WERE NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. THE LD. CWT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEBTS UNDERTAKEN BY TH E APPELLANT WERE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ACQUISITION OF TAXABLE ASSET S SO HE HELD THAT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEBT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 13 10. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO E ARLIER SUBMISSION, IF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY ASSESSEE IS HELD AS TAXABLE TO WEALTH TAX THEN FROM THE AGGREGATED OF A LL ASSETS, THE VALUE OF DEBT OF RS. 73,56,129/- OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE IN RELATION TO THOSE ASSETS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN NET WEALTH OF THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. 11. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOW ING DECISION:- A) ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN WTA NO. 1/JU/2008 ORDER DA TED 20.03.2009 IN THE CASE OF THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELS PVT. LT D. VS ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR FOR AY 1998-99. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE O WNED A LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN ON LEASE AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SECURITY D EPOSIT FROM EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. THE SECURITY DEPOSIT WAS HELD AS DEBT A ND DEDUCTION U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT WAS ALLOWED. THE DEPARTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE LISTED AS WEALTH TAX APPEAL 1 OF 2008 TI TLED AS CIT UDAIPUR VS. LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELS LTD. HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST L EASE IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS DEBT U/S 2(M) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. B) HONBLE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN M/S SALASAR OVERSE AS PVT LTD. IN WTA NO. 2 & 3/JP/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 08-09) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL O N RECORD AND CASE LAWS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THE LD. CWT(A) IN APPEAL HAS RETURNED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST PLOT BOOKIN G AND JDA CHARGES HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR ACQUISITION OF GOLD AND CAR. THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NEITHER BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE NOR SHOWN TO BE PERVER SE ON FACTS. THE SAME, THEREFORE, ATTAINS FINALITY. WE ALSO FIND AND THE R ECORD REVEALS THAT THE W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 14 AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST P LOT BOOKING AND JDA CHARGES WERE REPAYABLE IN CASH OR KIND ON THE RELEV ANT VALUATION DATE AND IS A DEBT INCURRED NOR WERE ASSESSED AS ASSESSEES INC OME OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN FRAMING INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR RESPECTIVE YEARS IN APPEAL. HAVING UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT FOR CREA TION OF THE ASSETS I.E. MOTOR CAR AND JEWELLERY/BULLION, IT IS PALPABLE THA T THE DEBT INCURRED HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH ASSETS UN DER CONSIDERATION. GOING BY THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2 (M) OF THE WT ACT, SUC H DEBTS OUTSTANDING ON THE VALUATION DATES ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FRO M THE VALUE OF ASSETS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF WEALTH F OR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, MODIFY THE DECISION OF LD. CWT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY SO THAT THE ASSESSABLE WEALTH AS ON VALUATION DATE IS RECOMPUTE D AFRESH AFTER DEDUCTING THE DEBTS SO PAYABLE ON THE VALUATION DATE IN THE L IGHT OF DISCUSSIONS AS CONTAINED HEREIN BEFORE FROM THE VALUE OF ASSETS HE LD BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONA L ITAT ON SAME FACTS, DEBTS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUISITION OF THESE P ROPERTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 12. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (II) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 2(M) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, NET WEALTH MEANS THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE AGG REGATE VALUE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF WEALT H TAX ACT OF ALL THE ASSETS, WHEREVER LOCATED, BELONGING TO THE ASSE SSEE ON THE W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 15 VALUATION DATE, INCLUDING ASSETS REQUIRED TO BE INC LUDED IN HIS NET WEALTH AS ON THAT DATE UNDER THIS ACT, IS IN EXCESS OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF ALL THE DEBTS OWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALUATION DATE WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID AS SETS; (III) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEBTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 73,56,129/- WERE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ACQUISITION OF ASSETS WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE APPE LLANT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT MERE STATEMENTS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE TO SUPPORT SUCH STATEMENTS ARE OF NO USE. THEREFORE, LOOKING T O THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THA T SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF THE DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 73,56,129/- WITH THE ASSETS WHICH ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF THE APPELLANT, THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEBT AMOUNT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS HEREBY REJECTED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW TO DETE RMINE THE NET WEALTH IS TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF ALL THE DEBTS OWED BY THE AS SESSEE ON THE VALUATION DATE WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SA ID ASSETS WHICH ARE EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX. THE EMPHASIS IS THEREFORE ON DEBT IN RELATION TO T HE SAID ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE WOULD THEREFORE BE REQU IRED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEBT HAS BEEN INCURR ED IN RELATION TO SUCH ASSETS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROXIMITY OR CONNECTIO N WITH THE ASSET IS SINE QUA NON FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION OF DEBT . THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LAKE PALACE HOTEL AND MOTELS, RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR, ALSO LAYS DOWN A SIMILAR PROPOSI TION WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT (REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT BEARIN G RATE OF INTEREST) HAS A DIRECT NIXUS WITH THE LAND IN QUESTION AND WAS ACCO RDINGLY EXCLUDED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(M) OF THE ACT. HAVING SAID THAT, THER E IS AGAIN NO MATERIAL ON W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17 SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACWT 16 RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD AR WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY NEX US BETWEEN THE DEBT AND THE ASSETS IN QUESTION. SINCE WE HAVE SET-ASID E THE MATTER RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF PIECES OF LAND/PLOT AS EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE, THIS ISSUE I S ALSO SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/07/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 31/07/2017 SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT - SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA, 211-212, SHALIMAR COMPLEX, CHURCH ROAD, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - THE ACWT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT , 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (W.T.A. NO. 01/JP/17) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.