IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Wealth Tax Appeal No.1 of 2001 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Begum Munawar-UI-Nisha -----Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr.Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 27A of the Wealth tax Act, 1957 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh passed in Wealth Tax Appeal No.106/Chandi/1998 relating to assessment year 1993-94, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.3 are legally sustainable? WTA No.1 of 2001 b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that agricultural land under cultivation measuring 75 kanals 9 1/3 marlas was in asset in terms of the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the agricultural land under cultivation measuring 75 kanals 9 1/3 marlas being an asset in terms of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is based on wrong interpretation in view of the mandate laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala v. Hari Singh’ reported in 123 ITR 558, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patiala v. Smt.Devinder Kaur reported in 146 ITR 234 and Commissioner of wealth Tax v. Jaidev Inder Singh reported in 195 ITR 367. d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the valuation arrived at by the ITAT can be sustained at law ignoring the fact that 66 kanals has been acquired by the improvement Trust in terms of award dated 7.7.1989, the same being the subject matter of litigation in view of pendency of CWP No.8007 of 1989? e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as the value of the old Kothi can be sustained at law the same being based on mere presumptions and surmises 2 WTA No.1 of 2001 without there being any independent evidence on record to corroborate the same? f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in upholding the valuation of the land measuring 75 kanals 9 1/3 marlas estimating the value of a small plot as the basis ignoring the valuation as recommended by the Chandra Committee Report as the basis? 2. We have dealt with the case of the assessee in our order passed today in WTA No.33 of 2002 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax II v. Begum Munawar-UI-Nisha), holding that property of the assessee was liable to tax under the Wealth Tax Act. Present case relates to appurtenant land and plea of the assessee is that since building was exempted, appurtenant land should also be exempted, which plea has not been accepted by the Tribunal. In the connected case decided today, referred to above, it has been held that buildings are also liable to tax. This being the position, claim of the assessee for exemption of the appurtenant land will not survive. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 22, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 WTA No.1 of 2001 4