W.T:A. NO.293/LR OF 1988-89 VS W.T:A. NO.293/LR OF 1988-89
1997 P T D (Trib.) 2163
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member
W.T.A. No. 293/LR of 1988-89, decided on 21/01/1996.
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S.4(3)---Net wealth---Advance rent---Debt owed ---Validity---Assessee claimed advance rent received as liability which was turned down by Assessing Officer but Appellate Authority allowed that clime---Validity-- Held, in certain situations advance rent did amount debt owed and a liability to be deducted from assets but, claim of liability had to be determined keeping in view exact nature of ,' rent advanced---Revenue having failed to bring home exact nature of advance rent received by assessee, Tribunal refused to interfere.
(1989) 59 Tax 50; I.T.A. No.244/LB of 1985-86; W.T.A. Nos.1 to 10 (PB) of 1980-81 and 1995 PTD (Trib.) 942 ref.
Qaiser M. Yahya, D. R. for Appellant.
Muhammad Ali Khan for Respondent.
Date of Hearing: 30th November, 1995.
ORDER
This departmental appeal assails an order recorded by CIT (Appeals (Zone-III), Lahore on 18-10-1988. The relevant ground of appeal is reproduced to elucidate the objection made by the Revenue:---
"That the learned, CIT (Appeal) was not justified to allow the claim of liability of Rs. 19,00,968 as there was no evidence on record to show that the assessee's claim falls in categories 1 to 3 -as discussed in his order dated 13-11-1988. Therefore, Tribunal's Order No, 1 to 10 (Pb) dated 2612-1983 is applicable in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset of proceedings submits that the issue involved in this appeal has already been examined by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in W.T.A. No.96/LB of 1986-87 re: W.T.O. Circle-III Lahore v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad, decided on 14-4-1994. Further states that the facts as well as the moot point having remained the same, this Division Bench should adopt the view declared in the aforesaid order dated 14-4-1994. In support of his submission that a decision of Bench of equal strength is binding upon another Bench reliance is placed upon a reported decision of Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited as (1993) 210 ITR 222 re: CIT v. B.R. Constructions. Also the learned counsel refers to certain excerpts from Chapter 8 of the famous treatise "Salmond on Jurisprudence. On merits he places reliance upon 59-Tax-58, 1988 PTD (Trib.) 588 and 1989 PTI 51. The case of re: CIT/WT. Lahore v. Mst. Fozia Mughees reported as (1972) 32 Tax 1 as also the one reported as (1963) LITR 267 re: CWT Bombay v. Standard Mills Company Limited is cited to support his view and interpretation of the word debt owed".
A number of unreported decided decisions have also been referred at the Bar. However, in absence of a copy of these decisions their mentioning in the order will not serve any purpose. It is also claimed that the latest view expressed by this Tribunal through a reported judgment (1995) 71 Tax 313 Trib.) is not attracted to the facts in this case because the Revenue failed to distinguish the advance rent reviewed by the assessee as one having the characteristics not akin to liability as admissible in the Wealth Tax Act and the Rules framed there under.
3. For the Revenue it is submitted that claimed advance rent was neither a debt owed nor a liability. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Authority by way of the impugned order was not justified in holding the same as such. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand again relies upon the above reported case of this Tribunal cited as (1989) 59 Tax 50 to contend that a Full Bench of this Tribunal have decided the matter in question once for all, the appeal filed by the assessee merits dismissal. Learned counsel also submits that another Division Bench (of which one of us, the Judicial Member was a member) having followed the ratio of the said reported case, the one relied upon by the Revenue and stated in the grounds of appeal stands overruled for all practical purposes.
4. The question whether advance rent received by a landlord does amount to "debt owed" has been considered at length in the aforesaid reported Full Bench case of this Tribunal. This question was again considered in I.T.A. No. 244/LB of 1985-86 (Assessment Year 1983-84) decided on 12-12-1992. In the said Full Bench decision no doubt, that the order of a Division Bench at Peshawar in W.T.As. Nos.1 to 10(PB) of 1980-81, dated 26-12-1993 was not approved in so many words yet we do not find ourselves in agreement with the submissions made for the respon dent-assessee that our decision is the said appeal decided on 12-12-1992 either strictly followed the Full Bench case or otherwise over-ruled the ratio of the case decided by the Peshawar Bench. The fact of the matter is that in the Full Bench reported case as also one decided on 12-12-1992, this Tribunal considered the matter from different angles and decided that in certain situations advance rent did amount to debt owed and, therefore, a liability liable to be deducted from the determined assets. The case relied upon by the Revenue certainly supports its case. However, as discussed in Full Bench case also the other decision by the Division Bench dated 12-12-1992, the claim of liability shall have to be determined keeping in view the exact nature of the rent advanced. This view also finds support from 1995 PTD (Trib.) 942.
5. The Revenue has not been able to bring home that in the present case the exact nature of the advance rent received by the assessee stood covered by one or more of the categories determined in the Full Bench case. In this respect a specific mention needs to be made of para. 31 of that said judgment. The Revenue being appellant in this case in order to succeed ought to have established the nature of advance rent as contemplated in para. 4 of the order of this Tribunal dated 12-12-1992. Since it has failed to do so, we do not feel inclined to interfere for the Revenue.
6. Appeal dismissed.
C.M.S./267/Trib. Appeal dismissed.