C.W.T.2,JODHPUR vs. RAM VALLABH

1 / 4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 1 / 2012 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-II, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur. ----Appellant Versus Ram Vallabh Chouhan, 3-B, Paota ‘B’ Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2 / 2012 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-II, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus Ram Vallabh Chouhan, 3-B, Paota “B” Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 3 / 2012 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-II, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus Ram Vallabh Chouhan, 3-B, Paota “B” Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 4 / 2012 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-II, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus Ram Vallabh Chouhan, 3-B, Paota “B” Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent (Uploaded on 23/06/2023 at 09:30:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:23:30 AM) 2 / 4 D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 5 / 2012 Commissioner of Wealth Tax-II, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus Ram Vallabh Chouhan, 3-B, Paota “B” Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.Sunil Bhandari For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment 23/01/2018 1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in the present appeals, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. 3. On 09.11.2012, the present appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding for the purpose of determining the nature of land as “urban land” within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, its distance from the local limits of the municipality must be measured in terms of the distance covered by approach road and not in terms of aerial distance.?” (Uploaded on 23/06/2023 at 09:30:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:23:30 AM) 3 / 4 4. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal, in para 7 of its judgment, has rightly reproduced the observations made by CWT (A). The said para 7 of the judgment dated 23.03.2012 is as follows: “7. Legal ground was dismissed by ld. CWT (A). However, the grounds on merit were allowed by ld. CWT (A) by giving his finding in para 5.4 at page 5 for all the years by passing a consolidated order. The findings of the ld. CWT(A) are reproduced as under: “5.4. However, the Hon’ble ITAT in order dated 2.8.2010 has held that land under question is beyond 8 kms from the local limits of Municipality of Jaipur, the same is outside the scope of capital asset within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and as such the capital gain was not leviable. The provision of clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.2(ea) of W.T. Act, 1957 provide definition of “urban land” as land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality and which has population not less than 10,000 according to last preceding census or in any area within such distance, not being more than 8 kms from the local limits of a Municipality specify by Notification in the official Gazette does not include . . . . . . . On examination of the above definition of the urban land with reference to land situated at village Thikriya of the appellant, it is found that the land under question is beyond 8 kms from Municipal Corporation, Jaipur as held by the Hon’ble ITAT in the order dated 2.8.2010. I, therefore, hold that the appellant land was not an urban land in accordance to the provision of sec.2(ea) of W.T. Act, 1957, and therefore, was not liable to wealth-tax. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made in the wealth tax assessment (Uploaded on 23/06/2023 at 09:30:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:23:30 AM) 4 / 4 orders for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07.” The findings of ld. CWT(A) are in line with the finding of Tribunal given in case of assessee while disposing the appeal in Income-tax matter. The Tribunal has given a clear cut finding that land in question is situated beyond 8 kms of Municipal limit, therefore, the same is not capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act. Since the findings of ld. CIT(A) are in line of the decision of Tribunal, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CWT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the finding of ld. CWT(A) for all the issues as issue is similar in all the appeals of the department.” 5. We are in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, and thus, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the same. 6. In that view of the matter, the aforementioned substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 7. The present appeals stand dismissed. 8. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (K. S. JHAVERI)J. Skant/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/06/2023 at 09:30:38 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:23:30 AM)