The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5624 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 429 ITR 0552

WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957

Section 2(e)(a) Section 254

Where land, which was unbuiltable under any law for the time being in force, was not an urban land and as such, was not an asset within the meaning of section 2(e)(a) of the WT Act and further, substantial question of law raised by revenue stating that Tribunal ought not to have rejected the revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect, without noting the revenue's audit objection, since the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on merits, substantial question of law did not arise for consideration.

Appeal (Tribunal) - Maintainability - Monetary limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals by Revenue -

Issue arose for consideration as to whether Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the department stating low tax effect when tax effect mentioned in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 was applicable only for income-tax matters and while appeal is under the WT Act. Assessee contended that the property fell within high tide zone and in the terms of the coastal zone regulations, property cannot be put to use for the purpose of constructing any building thereon and even if an application is made to the local planning authority/local body, the same will be rejected, as the planning authorities have no jurisdiction to deal with any application for grant of planning permission on a land, which falls within CRZ limits. Held: CWT(A) had recorded the factual finding that land, which was unbuiltable under any law for the time being in force, was not an urban land and as such, was not an asset within the meaning of section 2(e)(a) of WT Act. CWT(A) also referred to a decision in the case of Prabhakar Keshav Kunde v. CIT (2010) 194 Taxman 306 (Bom) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2216 (Bom-HC). Thus, CWT(A) on verification found that land falls within the prohibited zone CRZ III Category. Substantial question of law raised by revenue stating that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect, without noting the revenue audit objection. Since the issue was decided in favour of assessee on merits, substantial question of law did not arise for consideration.

Followed:Prabhakar Keshav Kunde v. CIT (2010) 194 Taxman 306 (Bom-HC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2216 (Bom-HC) and Asstt. CIT, Circle 15 (1), Chennai v. Smt. Sushila Devi Kejriwal [W.T.A. Nos. 25,26 & 27/Mds/2016, dt. 23-11-2016].

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :



IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com