Deavineni Lakshmi, Vijayawada V. Wealth Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawadaq

WTA 37/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3965 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBAKUMAR SONOWAL
• Section: 37

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 . 37 & 38 /VIZ/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 1 1 ) DEVINENI AVINASH D.NO.48 - 4 - 16 GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA [PAN :A VY PD 1431B ] DEVINENI LAKSHMI LEGAL REP. O F LATE SRI DENIVENI RAJASEKHAR D.NO.48 - 4 - 16 GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA [PAN :AWLPD6365N] VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(3) VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEBA KUMAR SONOWAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 . 03 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 0 4 .201 8 2 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA / O R D E R P ER BENCH : TH E S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) [C W T(A)], VIJAYAWADA DATED 14 . 09 .201 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 10 - 11. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON , THE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED , HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF IN A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER . 2 . ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATED TO THE VALUATION OF VACANT LAND AT SHAIKPET VILLAGE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEES OWNED PROPERTY OF 1195 SQ.YARDS OF HOUSE SITE AT SHAIKPET VILLAGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AND DECLARED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.5,97,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THE PROPERTY AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX AC T O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSET I S STOCK - IN - TRADE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND WITH M/S VULCON PROJECT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, HENCE ARGUED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS STOCK - IN - TRADE AND BUSINESS ASSET, HENCE IT IS EXEMPT U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY 3 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA WAS IN DISPUTE AND A CIVIL LITIGATION WAS R AISED VIDE O.S.NO.248 OF 2003 IN CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD AND THERE WAS AN INJUNCTION ORDER ON IMPUGNED LAND AS PER WHICH STATUS QUO SHOULD BE MAINTAINED TILL FURTHER ORDERS ARE PASSED OR TILL THE FINAL DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT ON 13.10.2015. THE LAND WAS UNDER COURT INJUNCTION HENCE NO ACTIVITY SHOULD BE TAKEN PLACE ON THE SAID LAND. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BY VIRTUE OF COURT ORDER THUS THE PROPERTY COMES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF EXEMPTED ASSETS U/S 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO NOT BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DID ANY BUSINESS NOR DECLARED ANY INCOME FROM THE BUSINES S OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, HENCE THE SAME IS NOT A BUSINESS ASSET AND LIABLE FOR WEALTH TAX . WITH REGARD TO THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL COURT THE AO HELD THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE LAW IN FORCE PREVENTING THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION, HENCE REJECTED THE ASSESEESS CONTENTION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX A CT . ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COLLECTED INFORMATION FROM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AND DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT R S.7,17,71,100/ - AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO THE WEALTH TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CWT(A ) AND THE LD.CWT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO 4 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA HOLDI NG THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSET IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ASSET. FURTHER, THE LD.CWT(A) ALSO OBSE RVED THAT THERE IS NO BAR F OR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IN THE AREA DUE TO OPERATION OF ANY LAW EXCEPT INJU NCTION ORDERS DUE TO DISPUTES. HENCE THE INTERIM ORDERS ISSUED BY THE CIVIL COURT CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE LAW IMPOSING THE PROHIBITION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CWT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEVINENI AVINASH, THE SAME ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.20 - 22/VIZ/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 AND THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSET IS NOT STOCK - IN - TRADE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.11 TO 11.1 OF ITAT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED URBAN VACANT LAND LOCATED AT BANJARAHILLS AND ENT ERED IN TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH VULCON PROJECT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND BUT NO DEVELOPMENT TOOK PLACE TILL THE DATE OF VALUATION DATE. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS A FIXED ASSET AND NO SUPPORTING EV IDENCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE PROPERTY WAS NOT CONVERTED AS A BUSINESS ASSET IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD. ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF DEVINENIAVINASH FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT VIZAG IN WTA NO.1/VIZAG/2015 DATED 10.06.2016 HELD THAT THE ASSET IS AN INVESTMENT BUT NOT STOCK IN TRADE. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE ITATS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 5 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WHICH LEADS TO LEVY OF WEALTH TAX IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A LAND ON 30.7.2007 AND ON THE NEXT DAY A MOU WAS ENTERED INTO WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR DEVELOPING THE SAID LAND. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS COMING UNDER THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FURTHER WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AS AN INVESTOR WHICH WAS PROVED BY HIS CONDUCT THAT HE HAD DISCLOSED THE SAID ASSET TO THE DEPARTMENT AS INVESTMENT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND HELD BY HIM IS STOCK IN TRADE WHICH IS KEP T OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF ASSET U/S 2(EA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION WHICH WAS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT HE HAD ENTERED INTO A JDA ON THE NEXT DAY OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT JUST BECAUSE HE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAID LAND IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT UNDER IMMOVABLE PROPERTIE S WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF LAND. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS PURCHASED. THE A.O. NOT DENIED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A JDA. THE A.O. SIMPLY WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND AS AN IN VESTOR, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS STOCK IN TRADE. 7. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN URBAN LAND COMING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT OR IS A STO CK IN TRADE, WHICH IS KEPT OUTSIDE THE DEFINITION OF ASSET. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND HELD BY HIM IS A STOCK IN TRADE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ASSET. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AS AN INVESTOR. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS AN IMMOVABL E PROPERTY. JUST BECAUSE LAND IS UNDER JOINT DEVELOPMENT, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSET IS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION THEREBY IT IS CLASSIFIED AS STOCK - IN - TRADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS STOC K - IN - TRADE WITH ANY EVIDENCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITR FORM - 2 WHICH IS MEANT FOR INDIVIDUAL AND HUFS 6 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA NOT HAVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, ABUNDANTLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN VOLVED IN ANY BUSINESS. BY HIS CONDUCT, THE ASSESSEE PROVED THAT HE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS EITHER IN THE PAST OR IN THE FUTURE. IF THE JDA IS ENTERED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS FOR THE BUILDER WHO COMES UNDER THE ACTIVITY OF BUSINESS BUT NO T THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AS AN INVESTOR, CONSEQUENTLY ANY GAINS FROM THE LAND WOULD BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED L AND HELD BY HIM IS STOCK - IN - TRADE. 11.1. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSET IS NOT STOCK IN TRADE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 1.1. TO 1.3 ARE DISMISSED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE LITIGATION OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL COURT IN O.S.NO.248 OF 2003, WHERE, AN INJUNCTION ORDER WAS ISSUED TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO, HONBLE IT AT FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT ORDER HELD THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE CWT(A). FOR READY REFERENCE, WE E XTRACT RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.13 TO 14 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ABOVE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN WTA 1 OF 2017 DATED 07.09.2017 AND THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA. 7 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA 6. THE FIRST QUESTION OF JAW THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AT SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD, DESPITE BEING AN URBAN LAND, CAN BE HELD TO BE NOT AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(EA) OF TH E ACT. 7. SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'ASSETS' IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 1993 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AS FOLLOWS: 2(EA) 'ASSETS' IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993, OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, MEANS (I) ANY BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'HOUSE), WHETHER USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A GUEST HOUSE OR OTHERWISE INCLUDING A FARM HOUSE SITUA TED WITHIN TWENTY - FIVE KILOMETERS 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 W HICH 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 (TEN LAKH RUPEES); (2) ANY HOUSE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WHICH FORMS PART OF STOCK - IN TRADE; (3) ANY HOUSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY OCCUPY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM; (4) ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN LET - OUT FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF THREE HUNDRED DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR; - (5) ANY PROPERTY IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OR COMPLEXES; (II) MOTOR CARS (OTHER THAN THOSE USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE OR AS STOCK - IN - TRADE); (III) JEWELLERY; BULLION AND FURNITURE, UTENSILS OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE MADE WHOLLY OR PARTLY OF GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM OR ANY OTHER PRECIOUS METAL OR ANY ALLOY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PRECIOUS METALS: PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY OF THE SAID ASSETS IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK - N - TRADE, SUCH ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED AS EXCLUDED FROM THE ASSETS SPECIFIED IN THIS SUB - CLAUSES 8 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA (IV) YACHTS, BOATS AND AIRCRAFT (OTHER THAN THOSE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES); (V) URBAN LAND; (VI) CASH IN HAND, IN EXCESS OF FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, OF AND HINDU - UNDIVIDED FAMILIES AND IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSONS ANY AMOUNT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXPLANATION - 1, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, - (A) 'JEWELLERY' INCLUDES - - (I) ORNAMENTS MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM OR ANY OTHER (I) PRECIOUS METAL OR ANY AY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PRECIOUS METALS, WHETHER OR NOT CONTAINING ANY PRECIOUS OR SEMI - PRECIOUS STONES AND WHETHER OR NOT WORKED OR SEWN INTO ANY WEARING APPAREL; - (II) PRECIOUS OR SEMI - PRECIOUS STORES, WHETHER OR NOT SET IN ANY FURNITURE, UTENSILS OR OTHER ARTICLE OR WORKED OR SEWN INTO ANY SEARING APPARE L ; (B) 'URBAN AND' MEANS LAND SITUATE - (I) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS C O MPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS 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; OR (II) IN ANY AREA WITHIN THE DISTANCE, MEASURED AER I ALLY - (I) NOT BEING MORE THAN TWO KILOMETERS, FROM THE, LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT HOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB - CLAUSE (I) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND BUT NOT EXCEEDING ONE LAKH ; OR (II) NOT BEING M ORE THAN SIX KILOMET E RS, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB - CLAUSE (I) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN ONE IAKH BUT NOT EXCEEDING TEN LAKB; OR (III) NOT BEING , MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETERS, FROM THE LOCAL REFERRED TO IN SUB - CLAUSE (C) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE 9 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA THAN TEN LAKH, 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 WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED OR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OR ANY UNUSED LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSES FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES TAR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FR OM THE DATA OF ITS ACQUSIT1ON 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 EXPLANATION 1, POPULATION' MEANS THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE DATE OF VALUATION. EXPLANATION 2 - FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARE THAT 'JEWELLERY' DOES NOT INCLUDE THE GOLD DEPOSIT BONDS ISSUED UNDER TH E GOLD DEPOSIT SCHEME, 1999 NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.' 8. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DEFINITION EXTRACTED ABOVE THAT AN URBAN LAND SQUARELY COMES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'ASSETS' UNDER SECTION 2(EA). EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 2(EA) DEFINES 'URBAN LAND' TO MEAN A LAND SITUATE IN ANY AREA COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY, CORPORATION ETC. BUT CERTAIN LANDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION 'URBAN LAND'. UNDER EXPLANATION - 1(B) OF SECTION 2(EA) THE LAN D ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION OR A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED, IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE DEFINITION. THE LANGUAGE USED IN EXPLANATION - L(B) IS CRYSTAL CLEAR TO THE EFF ECT THAT WHAT IS EXCLUDED IS ONLY 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. 9. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THERE WAS A PRIVATE PROPERTY DISPUTE WHICH LED TO THE FILING OF A CIVIL SUIT IN O.S..NO.248 OF 2003. IN THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY DISPUTE THERE WAS AN INTERIM ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PASSED BY THE CIVIL COURT. THEREFORE, SUCH AN INTERIM ORDER OF STATUS QUO PASSED BY A CITY CIVIL COURT PROHIBITING THE ASS ESSEE FROM PUTTING UP A CONSTRICTION TILL THE RESOLUTION OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY DISPUTE, DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO PROHIBITION 'UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FONT IN THE AREA IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS SITUATED.' 10. THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS COMPLETELY WRONG IN THINKING THAT WHEREVER SOME INTERIM ORDERS OF PROHIBITION HAVE BEEN PASSED IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE SAME WOULD ALSO FALL UNDER EXCLUSION UNDER EXPLANATION - 1(B). HENCE, BOTH THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE LIABLE TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT/REVENUE . 10 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ASSET FROM THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND CWT(A) HAS RIG HTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE SAME REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO WEALTH TAX PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CWT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 6. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSET IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ASSET AND NOT EXEMPT U/S 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE CWT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSES S EE S ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH APR 20 1 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( . ) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) (V. DURGA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 04 . 04 .201 8 L. RAMA, SPS 11 W TA NO S. 37&38 /VIZ/2017 DEVINENI LAKSHMI, DEVINENI AVINASH, VIJAYAWADA / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE APPELLANT - DEVINENI AVINASH AND DEVINENI LAKSHMI W/O & LEGAL REP. OF LATE SRI DENIVENI RAJASEKHAR, D.NO.48 - 4 - 16, GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA 2 . / THE RESPONDENT WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA 3 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX(APPEALS), VIJAYAWADA 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM