COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, 18, 19 of 1977; 15 and 16, 21 and 22 of 1978 and 1, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 and 7 of 1979. The assessees in all these references are different. The assessment years are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the relevant valuation dates being March 31, 1973 ; March 31, 1974 and March 31, 1975. We only propose to deal with the facts in wealth-tax reference No. 17 of 1977. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the decision on the question of law in this case will be applicable to all the references mentioned in this judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts are in short compass. While making wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, the WTO assessed the value of the agricultural land belonging to the assessee. As the agricultural land is situated within the urban area, the WTO treated that as an urban asset within the meaning of Clause (2) of Para. A, Part 1 of the Schedule to the W. T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter called " the Act, 1957 ") and levied additional wealth-tax thereon (copy of the order is annexure " A " ).

(3.) THE assessee who was dissatisfied with this decision went up in appeal to the AAC, Ludhiana. The AAC reversed the order of the WTO holding that the agricultural operation carried on by the assessee fell within the category of "business" and, therefore, it is covered by the exemption provided in Para. A (2) of the Schedule to the Act, 1957. The revenue then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal with the contention that the land belonging to the assessee is not covered by the exemption envisaged by Para. A (2) of Part 1 of the Schedule and, therefore, the additional wealth-tax is leviable thereon. The contention of the assessee was that Para. A (2), Part 1 of the Schedule provides for levying additional tax on the urban ' assets but business premises have been exempted and as the asset, i. e. , the agricultural land is covered by the expression " business premises ", therefore, no additional tax is to be levied on the value of agricultural land within the meaning of Para. A (2), Part 1 of the Schedule. The Tribunal relied on the decision in C. Velu v. Executive Officer, Erumayur Panchayat, AIR 1968 Ker 41 and dismissed the revenue's appeal. However, on considering the whole matter, the Tribunal observed in its order as under :