THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SRI.K.C.RAJAN

PDF · subscribers
WTA/3/2008HC KeralaKLHC01081024200805 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The judgment excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. It only sets the stage for the High Court's hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the specific findings on the issues, the reasoning, and the ratio decidendi of the ITAT's order, as well as any operative directions or undecided issues, are not available from this text. The High Court is presented with the appeal against the ITAT's order, but the outcome of that appeal is not recorded here.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated December 31, 2003. The assessment year in question is 1993-94. The appeal concerns the wealth tax liability of Shri K.C. Rajan. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT's order is under challenge before the High Court of Kerala. The specific details of the dispute and the ITAT's findings are not fully elaborated in the provided excerpt, but it is clear that the Commissioner is the appellant and Shri K.C. Rajan is the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Wealth Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the property in question was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94, thereby granting relief to the assessee. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The respondent-assessee, Shri K.C. Rajan, likely argued that the property was not includible in his net wealth, possibly based on the nature of ownership, possession, or its status under the Wealth Tax Act. Specific arguments and precedents relied upon by the assessee are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant-revenue, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, likely contended that the property was indeed includible in the assessee's net wealth and that the ITAT's decision to the contrary was erroneous. The revenue would have argued for the inclusion of the property to enhance the assessed wealth. Specific arguments and precedents relied upon by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:-

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

W.T.A.No.3 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.T.A.NO.53/COCH/2002 DATED 31-12-2003 OFTHE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. [ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94] ---------------------------- APPELLANT(S)/ RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR COUNSEL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.P.K.R.MENON & STANDING COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH.

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:- ---------------------------------------------- SHRI.K.C.RAJAN, KALLUVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)

SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2018, ALONG WITH W.T.A.NO.5 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.T.A.NO.3 of 2008 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:- -------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.03.2000. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 31.10.2002. ANNEXURE-C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.12.2003. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- ---------------------------------------------- NIL. vku/- [ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.T.A.Nos.3/2008, 5/2008, 13/2008, 14/2008, 19/2009 & 66/2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 05th day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J: The question of law raised in these appeals for different assessment years, of the very same assessee. We need not delve on the facts, since the issue is one covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Giridhar G.Yadalam v. CWT [(2016) 384 ITR 52 (SC)]. 2. The only question arising is as to whether under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 [for brevity “WT Act”] a land in which construction is being carried on could be excluded from the definition of “urban land” and thus from the definition of “assets” as available in Section 2(ea) of the WT Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that only a land in which the building is completely constructed stands excluded under the exclusionary provision under Explanation (1)(b)(ii) of Section 2(ea).

WTA Nos.3/2008 & - 2 - connected cases. 3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal and affirm the order of the Assessing Officer. The Wealth Tax Appeals would stand allowed, answering the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there is question of valuation which has to be considered by the Tribunal, which the Tribunal did not consider. Hence, to decide on the quantum, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall expedite the consideration, since the orders impugned are of early and late 1990s. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge Sd/- Ashok Menon Judge vku/- [ true copy ]

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →