Vegesna Ananthakoti Raju, Visakhapatnam V. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, , Visakhapatnam

WTA 36/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3954 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S MURTHY
• Section: 133(6); 205; 32

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W.T.A. NO S . 32 - 36 /VIZAG/201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 13 ) SRI VEGESNA ANANTHA K OTI RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DCWT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM [ PAN: AFTPV6702Q ] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.S.MURTHY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .02.2018 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : TH E S E APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) - 10, [CWT(A)] HYDERABAD VIDE ITA NO.0498/CWT(A) - 10/2015 - 16 DATED 12 . 0 6 .201 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 TO 2012 - 13 . SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON IN THESE APPEALS , THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER , DISPOSED OF 2 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM BY THIS COMMON OR DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . SINCE THE FACTS A R E IDENTICAL IN ALL CASES, THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED FROM ARE WTA 32/VIZ/2017 FOR THE A.Y2008 - 09. . 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE ARE RELATED TO A SSESSING THE VALUE OF LAND ADMEASURING 1560 SQ.YDS IN SURVEY NO.170/1, MADHURAWADA FOR A SUM OF RS.85,19,500/ - AND 1754 SQ.YDS IN SURVEY NO.188/1, MADHURAWADA FOR A SUM OF RS.95,86,500/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.1,81,06,000/ - FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSE S . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE VAL UE OF THE ABOVE LANDS OF RS.1,85,32,000/ - AS EXEMPT U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE LANDS AT MADHURAWADA ARE URBAN LANDS., AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY INCOME FROM THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES. THE AO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND WRITTEN A LETTER TO TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF I.T.ACT. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM(R URAL) IN RESPONSE , FURNISHED THE REPLY STATING THAT HE HAD DEPUTED THE FIELD STAFF AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FIELD STAFF ON 20.03.2015, NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN SURVEY NO.170/ 1, 188/1 OF MADHURAWADA VILLAGE AND THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND. RELYING ON THE REPLY 3 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM SUBMITTED BY THE TALSILDAR, THE AO HELD THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THEY ARE U RBAN VACANT LAND WHICH ARE EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX AND NO EXEMPTION IS ALLO WABLE U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE MARKET VALUE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) [CWT(A)] BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED BEFORE THE CWT(A), HENCE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND CROPS ARE GROWN IN THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS PER THE REVEN UE RECORDS SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE AO IN THE FORM OF A DANGAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE PASS BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE ADANGAL COPIES EVIDENCING THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION A RE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS CROPS ARE GROWN AND LAND REVENUE RECORDS CATEGORIZE THE SAID LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE L D A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION OF LAND INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGL Y CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT 4 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM PERMISSIBLE . THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 RETROSPECTIVELY, THE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR THE LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING I S NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW , IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS EXEMPTED U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. 5 . PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.A.R. ON THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY G. MALLES U , CULTIVATOR OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDENCE . THE LD.ARS ARGUMENT THAT UNLESS THE LAND IS CONVERTED INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND , THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AS URBAN LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IN WHICH CASE, THE ENTIRE URBAN LAND RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAN D IN THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS WOULD BE SCOT FREE FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE REPORT OF REMOTE SENSING INSTRUMENTS(RSI) WHICH IS NOT AUTHENTICATED ONE AND IT IS NEITHER PUBLIC DOCUMENT NOR AUTHENTICATED REPORT, HENCE REQUESTED NOT TO CONSIDER THE REPORTS OF RSI FOR HOLDING THE LANDS IN QUESTION A S AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE LD.DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE TAHSILDAR IS GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY WHOSE REPORT SHOULD BE GIVEN PROPER CREDENCE AND REQUIR ED TO BE TREATED AS CORRECT AND CANNOT BE BRUSHED A SIDE. THEREFORE, THE LD.DR 5 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM ARGUED THAT T H E AO HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE LAND AS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CWT(A), HENCE REQUESTED TO UPH O LD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6 . W E HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEEE IS HOLDING THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN SURVEY NO.170/1 AND 188/1 ADMEASURING 1560 SQ.YDS AND 1754 SQ.YDS RESPECTIVELY VALUED AT RS.1,81,06,000 / - . THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE LAND RECORDS IN THE FORM OF ADANGAL AND ARGUED THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE A GRICULTURAL LANDS AS PER GOVERNMENT RECORDS AND ALSO S UBMITTED THAT VARIOUS CROPS ARE GROWN IN T H E AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE FACT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WAS SUPPORTED BY THE REPORT OF RSI, AN ISO COMPANY INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE TENANCY AGREEMENT FROM G.MALLE SU FOR PAYMENT OF RS.4,000 PER ANNUM , PER ACRE DATED 22 .02.2014 WHICH WAS A NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT. THOUGH THE LD.AO AND THE CWT(A) P LACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE REPORT GIVEN BY TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM (RURAL) FOR TREATING THE LANDS IN QUEST ION AS NON AGRIC ULTURAL LANDS, THE TAHSILDAR VISAKHAPATNAM HAS SUBMITTED REPORT ON 25.03.2015 ON THE BASIS OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FIELD STAFF DATED 6 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM 20.03.2015, BUT NOT MADE ANY PERSONAL INSPECTION ON HIS OWN ON THE IMPUGNED LANDS. THE REPORT OF THE FIELD STAFF W AS AL SO NOT FURNISHED . THE LD. TAHSILDAR EXPRESSED OPINION OF NON AGRICULTURAL LAND SINCE THE LAND PARTICULARS ARE RECORDED IN SQ.YDS . , BUT NOT ON ANY FACTUAL FINDINGS. THE RE P ORT OF THE L D. TAHSILDAR CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FACTUAL REPORT AND SUFFER ING FROM MANY DEFECTS SUCH AS NOT MAK ING ANY PERSONAL INSPECTION OF THE LAND BY HIMSELF AND NOT CONDUCT ING ANY ENQUIRIES AND T HE REPLY IS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION REPORT OF THE STAFF. THE RELEVANT A.Y S ARE 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 13 RELATING TO THE F.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2011 - 12, BUT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON 20 . 03 . 2015 AND THE TAHSILDAR HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR COMING TO CONCLUSION THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED IN THE SAID LANDS. IT APPEAR S THAT NEITHER THE LD.TAHSILDAR NOR THE FIELD STAFF HAVE CO NDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE FACTUAL POSITION . SINCE THE ADANGAL IS A REVENUE RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM THE TENANT SUPPORTED BY REMOTE SENSING INSTRUMENTS REPORT WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE AOS CONTENTION. IN THIS CASE, NEIT HER THE TAHSILDAR NOR THE AO HIMSELF H AS INSPECTED THE LAND. THE LAND RECORDS CLEARLY SHOW THAT AS PER THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS, THE LANDS ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE SALE DEEDS ALSO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THERE I S NO OTHER EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THAT THE IMPUGNED 7 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM LANDS WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE CONTENTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE LANDS A RE NON AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE LAND S ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 2(EA) OF WT A CT. FURTHER , SECTION 2(EA)(B) WAS AMENDED RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01.04. 1993 AS PER FINANCE ACT, 2013 AS PER WHICH THE LANDS ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT SECTION 2(EA) (B) OF I.T.ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : 6. MR. V I SHAL MOHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT HAS DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN SECTION 2 (EA)(B) RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F 1.4 . 1993, AS PER THE FINANCE ACT, 2013. IT READS AS UNDER: '2 (EA) ( B). 'URBAN LAND' MEANS L AND SITUATE - (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY , MUNICIPAL 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 REL EVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE VALUATION 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 '(1), AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT MAY, HAVING REGARD T O THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBANIZATION OF THAT AREA AND OTHER, RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL L AND I N THE RECORDS OF THE G OVERNMENTAND USED FOR AG RICULTURAL PURPOSES OR LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUC TED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY 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 STOCK - IN - TRADE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY HIM. 7 . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LANDS ARE CONVERTED. ONCE THE LANDS ARE NOT CONVERTED AS NON AGRICULTURAL LANDS, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMM ISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. D.C.M.LTD. 8 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM (2007) [290 ITR 615(DELHI)] HELD THAT THE URBAN LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND NO PERMISSION TILL DATE HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, THE LANDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFIN ITION OF URBAN LAND CHARGEABLE TO WEAL TH TAX. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PARA NO.6 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6. THE PROVISIONS UNDE RL INED, ITALICIS ED IN PRINT, BY US IN THE ABOVE PROVISION WERE INSER T ED B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 1993 AND MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1ST APRIL, 1994. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR 1993 - 94. ON THE BARE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION , IT IS CL EAR THAT URBAN LAND WOULD NOT INCLUDE A LAND, ON WHICH CONSTRU CTION OF A BU IL DING I S NOT PERMISSIBLE UND ER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FARCE IN THE AREA WHERE LAND IS SITUATED, OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OR I N AN Y UNUSED LAND HELD B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION . IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE BEFORE US THAT THE ASSES S E E D OES NOT CLAIM BENEFIT OF THE THIRD CLAUSE OF THE CATEGORY SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS . THE ASSESSEE WOU LD OBVIOUSLY HAVE ADVANTAGE OF THE LAND, BEING NOT INCLUDED AS AN URBAN LAND BECAUSE NO CONSTRUCTION AT THE RELE VANT - TI ME WAS PERMISSIBLE ON THE LAND IN QUESTION. IN ALTERNATIVE, THE BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONS TRUCTED, IF AT ALL, WITH THE APPROVAL O F THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. I N MAXIM, GENERALIAVERBASUNT - GENERALITERINTE LLIGEN DA I T WOULD BE A HELPFUL PRECEPT TO I NTERPRETATION OF THE PROV IS IONS WHICH USED WORDS OF GENERAL NATURE AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT RELATES TO LAW OF REVENUE W OULD HAVETO BE C ONST RUED GENERALLY. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE APPEARS TO BE THAT LAND WHICH F AL LS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AF ORE REFERRED WOULD HAVE TO BE EXC LUDED FR O M THE A MBIT AND SCOPE OF THE EX PRESSION URBAN LAND'. ONCE T HE LAND OR ANY BUILDING THEREU PO N MAKING IT A COMBINATION OF LA ND AND BUILDING IS NOT A N URBAN LAND, THEN IT COULD NOT BE AN ASSET AS DEFINED UNDER S. 2(EA) OR THE ACT. THE RESULT THE R E O F WOULD BE NOT TO TREAT THE SAME AS NET WEALTH OF A N ASSESSEE FO R THE PURPOSES OF THE PR O V ISIONS OF WT ACT. THE FIRST THE WT ACT. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NOW ORDERS OF SUPREME COURT DT 1ST MAY, 1991, QUA REDEVELOPMEN T HAD BEEN PERMITTED OF THE MILL AREA TO FLATTED FACTORY COMPLEX AND GROUP HOUSING COMPLEX . LEA VE WAS ALSO GRANTED TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDING. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT TILL DATE NO PERMISSION/APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE A PPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO THE ASS SE SSEE TO RAISE THE BUILDING I N CONSONANCE WITH THE PLANS AND AS SUCH THE OL D STRUCTURE EXISTING IS NOT IN CONFORMITY , WITH L AW AND HAD NOT BEEN RAISED WITH THE LEAVE OF ANY AUTHO RI TY. IN OTHER WORDS, ON THE LAND I N QUESTION, NO CONSTRUCTION WAS PERMITTED AND THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED HAVE NOT GRANTED ITS APPROVAL SO FAR FOR RAISING CONSTRUCTION ON THAT LAND IN O THER OF THESE CASES, THE LAND WOULD STAND E XCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND' CHARGEABLE TO WEALT H - TAX. 8 . SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. LT.GEN.(RETD.) 9 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM R.K.MEHRA REPORTED (2010) [ 2 84 CTR 205 ]. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V S. E.UDAYAKUMAR 284 ITR 511 HELD THAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CITY CORPORATION ON WHICH NO CONSTRUCTION IS PUT UP IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TAX. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CASE SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS WELL AS THE AMENDE D PROVISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT, WHERE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE . ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE EXEMPTED FOR WEALTH TAX U/S 2(EA), HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TAX. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEB 20 1 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 21 .02.2018 L.RAMA, SPS 10 WTA .NOS. 3 2 - 3 6 /V IZ /201 7 SHRI VEGESNA A NANTHAKOTI RAJU , VISAKHAPATNAM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S RAJU VEGESNA AGROFARMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED., D.NO.10 - 27 - 2/4, FACOR LAYOUT, KAILASHMETTA, WALTAIR UPLAND, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX(APPEALS) - 1 0 , HYDERABAD 4. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (IT&TP), HYDERABAD 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM