COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SHASHIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE board shows endorsement to the effect that notice has not been received back. However, in light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, it is not necessary to keep the matter pending, considering the fact that the reference is pertaining to 1993.

(2.) THE following three questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court Under Section 27(2) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act'), by the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'C', at the instance of CWT, Gujarat IV, Ahmedabad :

(3.) HEARD Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He has reiterated the reasons which weighed with the AO and the AAC and urged that in such circumstances, the Tribunal was in error in treating the land in question as agricultural. According to him, the land in question was surrounded by building sites, is in a developed area within municipal limits and covered by town planning scheme. In the circumstances, it was contended that, if these factors are borne in mind, it was apparent that the potentiality of the land had undergone change and the character as an agricultural land did not survive. He pressed into service the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (supra) and another - decision in the case of Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT (supra) and submitted that the character of the land was required to be taken as non -agricultural in nature. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.