(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----Ss. 16 & 17---Failure to file return voluntarily ---Effect---Limitation-- Assessee did not file return for the assessment years from 1986-87 to 1992-93---Assessee, however, filed returns in response to the notice under S.17 of the Act---Assessing Officer, discarding the declared version, assessed on his own ---C.I.T.(A) set aside combined order of Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings---Validity---Contention was that order passed under S.16 of the Act was time-barred as 2 years (limitation) had lapsed according to provisions of S.17-A(b) of the Act---Held, there appeared to be no merit in the contention of the assessee---Since the returns were not filed voluntarily, therefore, assessee was hit by cl. (c) of subsection (1) of S.17 of the Act which provides that when the return is filed in pursuance of notice, time:: limitation is 4 years from the end of assessment year and two years from the service of notice.

(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S.7---Valuation of assets---Contention was that Assessing Officer had valued the jointly owned property at much higher rate which was covered under definition of A.O.P.---Order setting aside of assessment was approved with the observation that Assessing Officer should not repeat his original order in a stereotype manner but to go through all the documents presented by the assessee and to take cognizance of the cited cases by the assessee.

1991 PTD (Trib.) 1058; 1992 PTD (Trib.) 1187 and (1992) 66 Tax 90 ref.

Malik Tabassum Maqsood for Appellant.

Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th April, 1997.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK (JUDICIAL MEMBER). ---These appeals have been filed by the appellant against combined order passed by the learned CIT(A) for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1992-93. The appellant has agitated the setting aside of time- barred assessment, jurisdiction on undivided disputed properties, method of adopting the value and disallowance of liabilities.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant did not file returns. Therefore, the-assessing officer issued notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. In response to notice returns were filed for the years 1986-87 to 1992-93. The assessing officer discarded the declared version and determined the total wealth at Rs.2,83,174, Rs.2,87,280, Rs.3,17,386, Rs.6,34,492, , Rs.7,17,063, Rs.7,97,639 and Rs.9,03,705 respectively for the years 1986-87 to 1992-93. The appellant being aggrieved filed appeals before the CIT(A) who set aside the combined order passed by the assessing officer for de novo proceedings in accordance with law.

3.Arguments heard, record perused.

4. During the course of hearing the learned A.R. of the appellant urged that the assessment order passed under section 16 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is time-barred. The returns for the years under appeal were filed on 21-1-1994 and the limitation period of two years expired on 20-1-1996. The learned A.R. stated that provisions of section 17-A 1(b) states that "no order of assessment shall be made under section 16 at any time after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of furnishing of a return or a revised return under section 15 whichever is later v. -here the assessment year is an assessment year commencing on or after the first day of July, 1981 ". Thus, the order passed by assessing officer on 12-6-1996 is time-barred and should be annulled. The learned A.R. further urged that the assessing officer unlawfully completed the assessment for the assessment years under appeal with the remarks that share in plot at Basti Bela Ram, Din Road, Badami Bagh, Lahore. The value in each assessment year is assessed keeping in view the increasing trend of real estate in the country. It was valued at Rs.25,000, Rs.35,000, Rs.45,000, Rs.60,000, Rs.80,000, Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.1,25,000 respectively for the years under appeal. The learned A.R. stated that the assessing officer has valued the jointly owned property which is covered under the definition of AOP at a much higher rate. On the other hand the method of valuation at a higher rate is not justified and on the other hand assessment of AOP property in individual's hand is not sustainable. In this regard the learned A.R. relied on the following Judgments:

(1)1991 PTD (Trib.) 1058:

Assets belong to AOP. Whether self occupied AOP properties are liable to be tax held---No

(2)1992 PTD (Trib.) 1187:

AOP properties cannot be assessed.

(3)(1992) 66 Tax 90 (High Court):

AOP property could not be assessed in individual's hand.

Regarding the disallowance of liabilities the learned A.R. submitted that the assessing officer was provided with the affidavit of the persons from whom the loans were obtained. He disallowed fully verifiable loan without any reason which were liable to be accepted. The A.R. further stated if the assessments are set aside the W.T.O. would repeat his original order.

4. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned A.R. and there appears to be no merit in his contention with regard to the assessments barred by time. Since the returns were not filed voluntarily the assessee is hit by subsection (c) of section 17 in which it has been stated;

(c) Where the assessment or reassessment is to be made in a case falling within clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 17 for which a notice has been served under the subsection on or after the first day of July, 1981, after the expiration of a period of---

(i) four years from the end of assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable, or

(ii) two years from the date of service of such notice, whichever period expires later;

With regard to the setting aside of the assessments the same appear to be in order as some of the properties are disputed and more details would be required. The liabilities have also to be confirmed. However, in this regard the assessing officer is directed not to repeat his original order in a stereo type manner but carefully go through all the documents presented by the appellant. Further he has to take into cognizance the abovementioned case- laws cited by the A.R., in respect of AOP.

6. The appeals succeed to the extent indicated above.

C.M.S:/428/Trib. Appeals accepted.