Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss.13(1)(d) & 136---Income Tax Rules, 1982, 8.207-A---Addition-- Appeal to High Court---Question of law---Addition made by Assessing Officer was reduced by First Appellate Authority which was .deleted by Appellate Tribunal on the ground that declared value was in accordance with the value settled by the District Collector for purpose of stamp duty-- Department contended that question of law had arisen out of Tribunal's order as to whether Appellate Authorities were justified to reduce/delete the addition---Validity---Direction of Appellate Tribunal to accept the declared value in accordance with prescribed rate by the District Collector being supported by Rule 207-A, Income Tax Rules, 1982, question framed, therefore, could not be described as one of law or raising a legal controversy---Appeal was dismissed it; limine by High Court in circumstances.

Gulbai Jehangir Sukhia v. Controller of Estate Duty 1967 PTD 200 rel.

Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Appellant.

ORDER

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The appellant is an individual and an assessee of the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 1994-95 he returned income from different sources. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted that he had purchased a four Kanal plot, namely 32-C Model Town, Lahore for a declared value of Rs.56 lacs. The Assessing Officer finding the declared rate pet Kanal to be on the lower side, proceeded to estimate the same at Rs.15 lac per Kanal. The basis of his estimation being three parallel cases from the locality. The difference between the declared and estimated value at Rs.4 lac was accordingly added towards his income under section 13(1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Commissioner Appeals maintained the addition though he found the same to be on the higher side and therefore, directed it to be reduced to Rs.2 lacs. On further appeal, Lahore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed acceptance of the decretal value of the plot.

2. For the Revenue it is contended that following question of law has arisen out of the said order of the Tribunal dated 14-4-1999:---

"Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned appellate authorities below were justified to reduce/delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 13(1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by accepting the appeal of the respondent-assessee. "

3. However, we will not agree. In the first instance, the valuation of a property is mere an estimation which in this case was based upon the alleged parallel cases. The estimation so adopted was reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) which amounted to substitution of one estimate against another. The Tribunal rightly refused to interfere inasmuch as Rule 207-A providing for basis of valuation of immovable properties for the purposes of section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 expressly allows such determination in accordance with the value settled by the District Collector for the purpose of stamp duty. It is not the case of the Department that valuation of the property at the time of registration of the sale-deed was in any way understated or was not in accordance with the rates determined by the District Collector.

3. As observed earlier, the estimation of value of the house in question does not give rise to a question of law. In re: Gulbai Jehangir Sukhia v. Controller of Estate Duty 1967 PTD 200, determination of valuation of a house was challenged before the Karachi High Court. The learned Division Bench found that the determination of valuation by the Tribunal on the basis of annual rent fixed by' the Assessing Authority did not give rise to a question of law. In the present case the Tribunal directed acceptance of the declared value which was in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Revenue/District Collector for the purpose of levy of stamp duty under section 28-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. Rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 supports the adoption of such basis. The aforesaid question as framed, therefore, cannot by any stretch be described as one of law or raising a legal controversy.

4. This further appeal shall, therefore, be dismissed in limine.

C.M.A./M.A.K./C-32/L Appeal dismissed.