SURINDER KAUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers

WTA/41/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01107811201006 April 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was covered against the assessee by a previous order of the same Court dated September 8, 2003, in W.T.A. No. 1 of 2003 in the case of Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the assessee's appeal. The ratio decidendi is that agricultural land used for agricultural operations is includible in the net wealth under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, as per established High Court precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Surinder Kaur, filed an appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 6, 2010. This order pertained to Wealth Tax Appeal No. 8(ASR)/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03. The appeal was filed along with connected cases (WTA Nos. 42 to 50 of 2010), as they involved common questions of law. The dispute centers on whether agricultural land, where agricultural operations were being carried out, should be included within the definition of 'assets' under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act would include the agricultural land of the Appellant of which agricultural operations were being carried out? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that agricultural land, on which agricultural operations were being conducted, should not be included as an asset under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that such agricultural land falls within the ambit of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment records no specific argument for the revenue, but implies their stance aligns with the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

27A, 2(ea)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 6.4.2011 Smt. Surinder Kaur. -----Appellant. Vs. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax & another. -----Respondents. and connected cases being WTA Nos.42 to 50 of 2010 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of W.T.A. Nos.41 to 50 of 2010, as it is stated the all the appeals involve common questions. W.T.A. No.41 of 2010 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.4.2010 in WTA No.8(ASR)/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03 claiming following substantial question of law:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act would include the Agricultural Land of the Appellant of which agricultural operation were being carried out?” Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 8.9.2003 in W.T.A. No.1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 06, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →