An irrevocable power of attorney does not transfer ownership; the land remains liable for wealth tax unless formally vested in the Government post-ULC proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

1. The instant appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee challenging the Common Order, dt.31.08.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned ITAT’) in WTA Nos.13 to 17/HYD/2000, relating to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99. As the assessee is one and the same in all the matters and the issues arose therein were identical though pertaining to different assessment years, the learned ITAT heard the appeals together and disposed of by a common order.

2. Though separate appeals are filed before this Court, as the same question of law and facts arise in these appeals and the orders impugned being a common order, all these appeals were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

The brief facts of the case

3. The appellant/assessee namely M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited is a company doing business in manufacturing of AC sheets, and is registered on the rolls of the Additional CIT(Assts) SR-2, Hyderabad. It had purchased an extent of 53,944 sq. meters of land in Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, way-back in the year 1962 under a registered sale deed and out of the said total land, the constructed area was 11,913 sq. mtrs., and the remaining was vacant land admeasuring 42,013 sq. mtrs. It is contended by the appellant/assessee that an extent of 42,013 sq. mtrs has been given to Asbestos Centre(recreation centre), a society registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1315 Fasli under a registered Irrevocable Power Of Attorney on 28.10.1975 for the use of welfare activities of the employees.

4. Further, the object of the society was to provide a common place for the welfare of the employees and their family members. It is stated by the assessee that in view of the registered irrevocable power of attorney, the land was under active possession and enjoyment of the Asbestos Centre and thus, it ceased to be belong to it thereafter.

5. It is the case of the appellant/assessee that the Assessment Officer determined that the value of the said land was exigible to wealth tax u/s.2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1968 and referred the matter to the Valuation Cell to determine the value of the property as on the said date. The Assessing Authority pursuant to the report of the Valuation Officer, added the value of the said land as per the valuation report to the wealth of the assessee and passed the impugned assessment order, dt.28.03.2001.

6. Aggrieved thereupon, the appellant/assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), inter alia contending that the property which was transferred to Asbestos Centre vide a registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney, dt.28.10.1975, it did not belong to the assessee and, therefore, could not be treated as an asset within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Further it is contended that as the said property was transferred under registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney, dt.28.10.1975 and dt.26.07.1975, the Asbestos Centre is to be recognized as the holder of the property for the purposes of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings. Further, it is contended that by virtue of Irrevocable Power of Attorney, th