W.T.AS. NOS. 448 TO 455/LB OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 15TH SEPTEMBER, 1994. VS W.T.AS. NOS. 448 TO 455/LB OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 15TH SEPTEMBER, 1994.
1995 P T D (Trib.) 1234
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Ch. Irshad Ahmad, Judicial Member and Ahsan Alam, Accountant Member
W.T.As. Nos. 448 to 455/LB of 1986-87, decided on /01/.
th
September, 1994. (a) Wealth Tax Rules 1963---
----R.8 (3)---C.B.R. Letter C. No. 14(7)-WT/II-VI/79, dated 21-8-1979, para. 3(d)---Valuation of assets---Shop used for business by a firm wherein assessee was a partner is to be treated in self-occupation of the assessee for wealth tax purposes---Contention that a registered firm was a legal entity and the possession of the firm could not be treated as the possession of the assessee was repelled---Firm, unlike a company, does not possess a legal personality, it is only a collective name of the partners---Value of the shop in question has to be determined as provided by C.B.R. Letter C. No.14(7)WT/II-VI/79, dated 21-8-1979.
(b) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---
----R.8(3)---Valuation of assets---Assessment order has to indicate the basis on which the value of immovable assets of the assessee was estimated by the Assessing Officer---Assessing Officer has also to indicate that the value adopted by him was comparable with other properties similarly situated in the locality.
Muhammad Ashraf, D.A. for Appellant.
Farzand Ali Bhatti, I.T.P. for. Respondent.
Date of hearing 14th September, 1994.
ORDER
CH. IRSHAD AHMAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This order disposes of eight appeals filed by the Wealth Tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1985-86. The CIT(A) by his order, dated 28-2-1987 had reduced values of immovable assets of the assessee. The Wealth Tax officer has objected to the said order on two grounds, firstly that as per Notification dated 18-1-1987 the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case on 27-2-1987 and secondly the reduction in the valuation made by the CIT(A) was without any basis.
We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, D.R. in support of the appeal and Mr. Farzand Ali Bhatti, I.T.P. for the assessee.
As per notification, dated 18-1-1987 jurisdiction of the CIT(A) to hear appeals under the Gift Tax Act was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-D, Faisalabad. CIT (A), Faisalabad's jurisdiction with regard to appeals under Wealth Tax Act was not disturbed. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the Wealth Tax Officer that as per notification; dated 18-1-1987 CIT(A), Faisalabad had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal on 27-2-1987.
The D.R. contended that the CIT(A) was not justified to direct that the value of the shop bearing No.160-A Rail Bazar, Faisalabad shall be adopted as per cost in accordance with paragraph 3(d) of Circular No.14(7) WT/II-VI/79, dated 21-8-1979, because the said 'Circular was applicable in such properties as were in the occupation of the assessee. To the assessee's contention that the shop was in occupation of the assessee as the assessee was a partner in the firm occupying the shop; the D.R. contended that a registered firm was a legal entity and the possession of the firm could not be treated as the possession of the assessee who was namely a partner in the said firm. The contention of the D.R. is not supported by legal authority. In law, unlike a company a firm does not possess a legal personality. It is only a collective name of the partners. In our view, therefore, the CIT(A) was justified to direct that the value of the property shall be .determined as provided for in the said Circular.
Regarding the valuation of the remaining properties, we observe that the assessment order does not indicate the basis on which the value of various immovable assets of the assessee was estimated by the assessing officer. The assessment order does not indicate that the values adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer are comparable with other properties similarly situated in the locality. Similarly, the CIT(A) has also re-evaluated the value of various assets on the basis of his empirical judgment. In view of the fact that no basis has been provided on which the wealth tax authorities had adopted various valuations, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
M.BA./106/TAppeals dismissed.