COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS MUHAMMAD AHMAD
2001 P T D 2961
[Karachi High Court]
Before Zahid Kurban Alavi and Mushir Alam, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
versus
MUHAMMAD AHMAD
Wealth Tax Case No.111of 1992, decided on 10/10/2000.
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑
‑-‑‑Ss.27(4) & 16(3)‑‑‑Reference application‑‑‑Valuation of half share in plot‑‑‑Assessing Officer accepted the declared value of half share of plot in the hands of one co‑owner while the value of other half share of the same plot was assessed on the higher side in the hands of other co‑owner‑‑ Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the declared value of the half portion of the plot in the hands ‑of other co‑owner also‑‑‑Department challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that valuation in question was accepted without referring to any factors justifying the reasonableness of the declared value which was ridiculously low‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Not open to the department to discriminately adopt varying valuation for distinct portions of the same plot in the hands of different assessees when ex facie there was no disparity between the two portions‑‑‑Reference application was dismissed by the High Court.
Jaswant Rai v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1978) 38 Tax 9 (HC Ind.) rel.
Nasurllah Awan for Applicant.
Jawed Zakariya for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th September, 2000.
JUDGMENT
ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J.‑‑‑By this judgment we shall dispose of Wealth Tax Case No. 111 of 1991. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, being assessed at G.I.R. 2190/x. In this case the assessment was completed under section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.
2. The plot in question was jointly owned.
The assessee being aggrieved against the valuation of his portion of the plot at Rs.2,34,000 against declared value at Rs.38,2000 preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the valuation of plot adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer. The assessee being aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi which directed the Wealth Tax Officer to accept the declared value of the assessed portion, of the plot because the value declared at Rs.38,2000 by the other co‑owner of the plot (1/2 share) had been accepted by the Wealth Tax Officer. The applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal on grounds that the valuation in question was accepted, without referring to any factor justifying the reasonableness of the declared value of Rs.38,2000 which was ridiculously low.
3. This matter was put up before us and it was pleaded that the following question of law has arisen out of the decision of the Income Tax Tribunal.
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to direct the Wealth Tax Officer to accept declared value of the plot merely because the declared value of the half portion of the plot was accepted in the hands of the other co‑owner of the plot and without bringing anything or record or a finding to the effect that the declared value was proper and appropriate in the light of prices of similar properties as prevalent during the period and also in total disregard of the past history of the case."
This question of law was referred to us under section 27(4) of the Wealth Taxis 1963.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the respondent and have noted that the basic question that need to be answered pertains to two different values that were determined in connection with the same plot. One portion was owned by the co‑sharer and the value declared by him was accepted. The declared value of the other portion of the same plot owned by the respondent was not accepted even though he insisted that since the value of the other portion of the same plot owned by the co‑sharer had been accepted, the value of his portion should also be accepted.
5. The matter was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and in fact the tribunal refused to allow any reference to be made to the High Court as it was of the opinion that no question of law had arisen out of the judgment and the proposed issue was more a question of fact than law.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant did not satisfy us as to why two separate valuations were being made in respect of the same plot. No reasonable explanation was given. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent insisted that this matter had been decided by the Tribunal and since no question of law had arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, this Wealth Tax Case needed to be dismissed. He also drew our attention to the case of Jaswant Rai v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1978) 38 Tax 9 (H.C.I.N.D.) in which it was observed as follows:
"Under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the incidence of taxation is the Ownership of net wealth. If during the sameassessment year the same quantity of wealth in possession of one co‑sharer were subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co‑sharer with a high rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities were sanctioned, it would militate against the principles of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
We are in conformity with the observation made above. We agree with the contention of the respondent that no case has been made out by the appellant. It is not open to the department to discriminatingly adopt varying valuations for distinct portions of the same plot in the hands of different assessees when ex‑facie there is no disparity between the two portions, nor any pointed out as in this case. Accordingly the matter is dismissed.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑25/KApplication dismissed.