COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. RAMAN KUMAR DEORAH
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-9
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 21,1994

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Appellant
VERSUS
RAMAN KUMAR DEORAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V. DUTTA GYANI, J. - (1.)IT is a reference under S. 27 (1) of the WT Act, 1957 (`the Act') , at the instance of the CIT, North Eastern Regiona, Shillong, seeking this Court's opinion on the following question:-- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the land situated within the limit of Gauhati Municipal Corporation was exempt as agricultural land under the WT Act, 1957?"
(2.)THE learned standing counsel for the Revenue Mr. Talukdar and the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Joshi, are heard.
Before proceeding to deal with the question of law, the basic facts may now be quoted.

The assessee owns agricultural land admeasuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 14 lechas in village Maidam under Beltola Mouza, situated within 8 kms. from the office of the Gauhati Municipal Corpn. The
value of this land was not included by him in has wealth tax return as on 11th April, 1981, on the
(e) of the WT Act (`the Act') . As such, it was exempted from being included as asset and excluded from the definition of asset as given in the Act.

(3.)THE AO rejected the contention, hence an appeal to the AAC, who accepted the assessee's contention and held that the agricultural land owned by the assessee was to be excluded from his asset, vide his order dt. 19th May, 1986. It was further held that the aforesaid land did not fall within the purview of asset as defined in the Act. THE Revenue prefered an appeal before the Tribunal against the said order and the Tribunal has also maintained the same. A reference was, therefore sought. Accordingly, the question quoted above, has been referred to this Court for its opinion.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue has raised the following points:--

(1) That the question as referred by the Tribunal is not properly couched and worded so as to cover the real nature of dispute as raised before the Tribunal. (2) That actual user of land though recorded as agricultural land should be the decisive factor, which has been ignored by the authorities as well as the Tribunal.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.