Pro Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-I v. R.j. Corp Ltd

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 13+WTA 3/2015 PRO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-I Petitioner Through; Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr.Raghvender Singh, JuniorStanding counsel and Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate. versus R.J. CORP LTD., Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate withMr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%25.08.2015 % 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act,1957 ('WT Act') is directed against the order dated September 2014passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in WTA No.15/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The brief facts are that the Assessing Officer ('AO) made addition ofRs.4,31,27,216 to the returned wealth of the Respondent Assessee being thevalue of urban land at Gurgaon acquired by the Assessee for the purposes of WTA No. 3/2015 Page 1 of 3 construction of a commercial complex. 3. The land in question was acquired by the Assessee on 19''^ January 2004, The building plans were sanctioned on June 2004 and a sum ofRs.6,31,36,973 was incurred up to 31®' March 2005 on construction of thebuilding. Under Section 2 (ea) (v) of the WT Act 'asset' includes 'urbanland'. However, in terms of Explanation I (b) 'urban land' does not includeunused land held by the Assessee for industrial purposes for a period of twoyears from the date of its acquisition by him. In other words, only where theAssessee continues to hold the unused land for industrial purposes for aperiod beyond two years after its acquisition, would it be considered as anasset for the purposes of Section 2(ea) of the Act. 4. The question, therefore, in the present case is whether, in the AY 2004-05. the Assessee continued to hold the land unused for a period beyond twoyears from the date of its acquisition? 5. The ITAT was of the view that, on the facts of the present case, the landheld by the Assessee did not qualify as an asset within the meaning ofSection 2(ea) (v) of the WT Act and the value of such land ought to be WTA No. 3/2015 deleted jfrom the computation of wealth. Considering that the land wasacquired on 19*^ January 2004 and construction thereon began after thebuilding plans were sanctioned on June 2004, and a sum ofRs.6,31,36,973 was incurred up to 31®' March 2005, it is evident that theAssessee did not continue holding the land unused for more than two yearsfrom the date of its acquisition. It, therefore, stood excluded fi-om thedefinition of an 'asset' under Section 2 (ea) (v) read with Explanation 1 (b) ofthe WT Act. 6. No substantial question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of thepresent case. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 25,2015mg VIBHU BAKHRU, J