Hafiz ABDUL QAYYUM VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2689 (2002)

Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.16‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Assessment‑‑‑Agricultural land‑‑‑Inclusion of in the net wealth contrary to finding of First Appellate Authority for the previous years by stating that no proof was furnished to show that the land was agricultural in nature‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order was quite invalid insofar as it related to the land owned by the complainant as in the said order the clear findings of the First Appellate Authority for the immediately preceding years had been totally ignored without giving any basis for including and valuing the said land for the purpose of wealth tax‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that assessment for the two years be set aside by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under S.25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 with the directions that the findings of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) for the earlier years be‑ also followed in the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001, unless there was definite material to show that the nature of the property had changed and that for reasons to be recorded it could no longer be treated as agricultural land‑‑‑Evidence available with the complainant be given proper consideration and he be allowed full opportunity of being heard.

Complainant in person.

Jafar Nawaz, DCIT for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

This is a complaint relating to wealth tax assessments for the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 in the complainant's case. The complainant's contentions are as under:‑‑‑

(i) In the assessment year 1996‑97 wealth tax was illegally levied in the complainant's case by treating four Kanals of agricultural land as non‑agricultural property and the assessment was set aside by the CWT (Appeals) for de novo consideration.

(ii) Subsequently a combined order for the years 1996‑97 to 1998‑99 was passed in which again the land in question was assessed as non‑agricultural land.

(iii) In appeal, however, the CWT (Appeals) accepted the complainant's plea and directed that the land in question be treated as agricultural property.

(iv) Now wealth tax assessments for the years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 have been framed and contrary to earlier findings of the CIT (Appeals) for the years 1996‑97 to 1998‑99 the land in question has again been treated as non‑agricultural property for the stated reason that no proof was furnished to show that the land was agricultural in nature.

(v) The fact, however, is that the record of ownership as well as the report of the 'Patwari' was furnished to the Assessing Officer at the time of hearing and there was thus no justification for treating the land as non‑agricultural property.

It has been prayed that redressal be provided to the complainant against the arbitrary actions of the Assessing Officer.

2. The respondent's reply has been received and the complainant and the representative of the respondent have attended and have been heard. In the respondent's reply it has been stated that the plot in question was considered as non‑agricultural property on the basis of inquiry report of the 'Inspector dated 22‑6‑1999. It is also stated that `Register Girdawary' available on record was also considered by the Assessing Officer in which, however, the name of the complainant was not included as owner of the land. The assessment for4he two years was statedly made on the basis of the Inspector's inquiry report and the rates prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner were adopted for purpose of wealth tax valuation.

3. It was, on the other hand, contended by the complainant that it is absolutely incorrect that no proof of ownership of agricultural land was furnished by him. It was contended that the nature of the land has not changed since the assessment years 1996‑97 to 1998‑99 for which years the CWT (Appeals) had, on the basis of documentary evidence, held that it was agricultural land.

4. The assessment records were seen and it was observed that in the combined wealth tax assessment order dated 29‑6‑2001 for the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001, the portion relating to the four‑Kanal land read as under :

"Plot 4‑Kanal?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1999‑2000?????? 2000‑2001

In the absence of any documentary???????????????????

evidence the value of this plot is???????????? 24,00,000??????? 25,00,000"

adopted at

There is no reference whatsoever in the assessment order to any report of the Inspector nor is there any indication as to what proof was 'required by the Assessing Officer which was not furnished when in the appellate order dated 21‑1‑2000 for the assessment years 1996‑97 to 1998‑99, the CWT (Appeals) had on the basis of documentary evidence, already held that the land was agricultural in nature. There is also no reference in the assessment order to the so‑called `Register Girdawary' which according to the respondent's reply did not support the complainant's case. In fact the extract from the said register is available on record and it is seen that it relates to 19. Kanals of cultivable land and 1 Kanal 2 Marlas non-?cultivable land in the name of Sardar Begum etc. It is, however, evident from the extract from the register of ownership (Register Haqdaran) that the land of the complainant was included in the aforesaid 20 Kanal, 2 Marlas land. The Inspector's report 22‑6‑1999 is also available on record in which it is stated that the land was not found to be used for agricultural purposes and that the value of the plot may, be adopted according to the rates fixed by the District Collector. As already noted, however, the assessment order makes no reference to the Inspector's report and does not give any basis for the value of Rs.24,00,000 and Rs.25,00,000 adopted for the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 in respect of the plot.

?5. In the light of the above, it is evident that the combined assessment order for the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 is quite invalid insofar as it relates to the 4 Kanals land owned by the complainant as in the said order the clear findings of the CIT (Appeals) for the immediately preceding years have been totally totally ignored without giving any basis for including and valuing the said plot for the purpose of wealth tax for the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001. It is, therefore, recommended that :

(i) The assessments for the two years be set aside by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act with the directions that the findings of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) for the earlier years be followed in the assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 also unless there is definite material to show that the nature of the property has changed and that for reasons to be recorded it can no longer be treated as agricultural land. In this connection the evidence available with the complainant be given proper consideration and the complainant be allowed a full opportunity of being heard.

(ii) Compliance report, be furnished within 30 days.

C.M.A./M.A.K./376/FTO