BEFORE ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VS BEFORE ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
2002 P T D (Trib.) 132
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Zafar Ali Thaheem, Judicial Member and Mazhar Farooq Sherazi, Accountant Member
W.T.A. No. 736/LB of 1995, decided on 09/04/2001.
Wealth tax---
----Valuation of property---Land and construction---Valuation-- Assessment Year 1994-95---Cold storage---Value of land was adopted at Rs. 40,000 per Marla and construction rate Rs. 80 per sq. ft.---First Appellate Authority reduced the value to Rs. 20,000 per Marla and construction rate Rs. 50 per sq. ft.---Value of land opposite to the property was notified at Rs. 85,000 per Marla by the District Collector-- Appellate. Tribunal fixed the value at Rs. 30,000 per Marla and rate of construction at Rs. 65 per sq. ft. in circumstances.
Javed Aziz, D.R. for Appellant. Demo for Respondent,
Date of hearing: 6th April, 2001.
ORDER
ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---The instant departmental appeal pertaining to as assessment year 1994-95 has been directed against the impugned order, dated 16-5-1995 recorded by the A.A.C. of Income-tax/Wealth Tax, Sahiwal whereby the Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction of adopted value of land from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 20,000 per Marla and rate of construction from Rs. 80 to Rs. 50 per square foot in respect of Cold Storage measuring 8 Kanals situated at Mian Muhammad Pur Road, Sahiwal.
2. Mr. Javed Aziz, D.R. is present on behalf of the Revenue whereas none is present on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice. Therefore, ex parte proceedings are conducted by resorting to rule 20(2) of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1981.
3. The learned D.R. has vehemently argued that the basis evolved by the assessing authority was quite reasonable, hence there was no justification for drastic reduction of valuation of lattar under consideration. He further contends that the First Appellate Authority has not mentioned cogent reasons for impugned reduction. He laid emphasis on the plea that the subject property is situated on the front of the road and just opposite to the property in question notified rate by the D.C. is Rs. 85,000 per Marla.
4. On the issue of construction rate the sole contention of the D.R. is that the learned A.A.C. has restricted the rate at Rs. 50 per sq. ft. without any justification whereas rate adopted at Rs. 80 per sq. ft. by the assessing authority is quite fair and reasonable in all respects.
5. We have given careful consideration to the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue and also perused the relevant record available on file. We find ourselves in agreement with the contention of learned D.R. that the subject property is situated on the front of the road carries legal weight and moreover the valuation of land just opposite to the A property is notified at Rs. 85,000 per Marla by the District Collector. In view of the foregoing tangible ground we are inclined to modify the impugned order and fix the value at Rs. 30,000 per Marla in respect or property in question.
6. Likewise the reduction made by the A.A.C. also seems to be unjustified and without solid reasons. Therefore, the rate of construction is fixed at Rs. 65 per sq. ft.
7. The departmental appeal succeeds on all issues raised before us.
C.M.A./M.A.K./171/Tax(Trib.) Appeals accepted.