IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. W.T.A. No.30 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.4.2011 Commissioner of Wealth Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 1.9.2009 in WTA No.06/Del/09 for the assessment year 2000-01 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by ignoring that under the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act the urban land is included in the definition of ‘assets’ w.e.f. 01.04.1993 and on merits the value of such urban land was taxable. W.T.A. No.30 of 2010 (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal without appreciating that no monetary limit is prescribed for filing wealth-tax appeal as per instruction No.5 of 2008.” 2. The Assessing Officer included the agricultural land falling under the definition of ‘Urban land’ and ‘asset’ under Section 2(ea) for assessment under the Act. On appeal, the CWT (A) set aside the addition made following its order for the earlier assessment year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the department on the ground of smallness of the amount involved. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monetary limit for filing appeal was not applicable to wealth tax cases and in any case, on the date of filing of appeal before the Tribunal, the limit of `2 lacs was not applicable. Moreover, the limit prescribed is for Income Tax matters and not for wealth tax matters. Though this Court vide order dated 21.4.2010 in WTA No.1 of 2010 CWT v. Kulbir Singh and Rajender Singh applied the said limit and on that ground upheld the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the appeal on the ground of monetary limit, subsequent Full Bench in I.T.A. No.209 of 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax III Ludhiana v. M/s Varindera Construction Co. Baghapurana decided on 4.2.2011 held that it is the date of filing of the appeal which is relevant for the monetary limit. Thus, order 2 W.T.A. No.30 of 2010 of the Tribunal is in conflict with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. 5. On merits, view has already been taken in favour of the revenue by order passed today in W.T.A. No. 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax etc. 6. In view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in M/s Varindera Construction Co. Baghapurana, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. It is made clear that if the assessee is aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Court. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 06, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3