MUHAMMAD RAZA VS GENERAL MANAGER, WAPDA, 1994 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 77 (1993)

Estate Duty Act (X of 1950)---

----S. 59-A---Reference to High Court---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-- Tribunal was not justified in using the material which was not confronted to *the appellant at the time of hearing the case---High Court on Reference directed that the matter be decided afresh by the Tribunal accordingly.

Altaf Hussain Jamal for Applicant.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th January, 1993.

JUDGMENT

M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CJ.---This petition under section 5`'(A) of the Estate Duty Act, 1950 prays for framing of the following three questions and for rendering opinion thereon stated to have arisen out t ' order, dated 30th of January, 1985 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench Lahore:--- '

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the material evidence on record and depending upon estimation of value adopted for assessment by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty?

(ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in their orders were justified in law in using the material which was not confronted to appellant at the time of hearing of the case?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the Tribunal erred in law in depending for decision upon partly relevant and partly irrelevant material?

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset abandoned questions Nos. l and 3 and sought an answer for question No.2 alone. The learned counsel for the respondent only submitted that the question does not arise out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He was, however, confronted with the following averment in the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30th of January 1985:--

"Valuation of this property was fixed on the basis of the only evidence available on record in the form of Inspector's report. As that report did not strictly pertain' to the year "of death of the deceased, the Tribunal taking into consideration the accommodation as well the period of death fixed the valuation."

and asked to show how this question No.2 does not arise out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In reply he only said that the matter is very old and, therefore, on this consideration the same should not be reopened. We, however, do not feel persuaded to accept this submission of the learned counsel and must observe that the Tribunal had while deciding the appeal not adverted to a very important factor viz. that the assessee was not confronted with the material on the basis of which the order was made by the Tribunal.

3. We would, therefore, answer the only question falling, for determination namely question No.2 in the terms that the learned Income' Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in using the material which was not confronted to the appellant at the time of hearing of the case and would direct that the matter be decided, afresh by the Appellate Tribunal in the light of the answer to the question.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

M.B.A./Z-90/LQuestion answered in negative.