Before Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Khalid Waheed Ahmedv VS Before Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Khalid Waheed Ahmed
2002 P T D (Trib.) 882
[Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Khalid Waheed Ahmed, Judical Members and Mrs. Safia Chaudhry, Accountant Member
W.T.A. No.788/LB of 1996, decided on 09/08/2001.
Wealth Tax Rules, 1963‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 8(3)‑‑‑Valuation of property‑‑‑Bald estimation by the Assessing Officer in view of Inspector's report‑‑‑Reduction in value by First Appellate Authority on the ground that exact location of the property (plot) had not been given'‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Being one bald estimation against the other, the Tribunal normally would not interfere‑‑‑Finding of the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the Tribunal.
Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1st August, 2001.
ORDER
CHAUDHRY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).‑‑ This appeal has been filed by the Revenue to contest reduction in the valuation ~f three immovable properties made by the learned CWT (A), Zone‑V, Lahore vide his order, dated 29‑2‑1996 passed on Appeal No.3581/15 for the assessment year 1994‑95. The reduction in the value is contested as being unjustified by the facts of the case.
2. Mr. Muhammad Asif. Additional Commissioner of Income‑tax appeared on behalf of the appellant while none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the appeal is decided ex parte on merits under Rule 20(2) of the ITAT Rules, 1981.
3. Perusal of record shows that the assessee owned 3/4 share in shop and house at Ghalla Mandi, Sheikhupura value of which was declared at Rs.45,000. The same was considered by the W.T.O. to be low. He adopted the value of land (356 sq. ft.), situated on the Main Road @ Rs.1,50,000 per Marla as specified by the D.C., Sheikhupura while for the area lying off the Main Road (measuring 1650 sq. ft.), he adopted lesser rate i.e. he Rs.1,00,000 per Marla. The value of total property inclusive of cost of construction was adopted at Rs.13,500 and assessee's 75% share was determined at Rs.9,75,375. The learned CWT(A) vide his impugned order reduced the rate of Rs.1,650 sq. ft. of land from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000 per Marla as the same was considered to be excessive. It is a question of one estimate against another and hence, no interference is made on this issue.
4. The assessee owns 5 Kanal, 12‑1/2 sq.ft plot as well as 1 Kanal 20 Marla plot. The value of the first plot was declared at Rs.13,375. As per spot inquiry report, the market value was reported to be Rs.5,000 per Marla. The Assessing Officer, however, taking a lenient view, valued the land Q Rs.4,500 per Marla in respect of both the plots and arrived at valuation of Rs.5,40,000 and Rs.1,03,000 respectively. The learned CWT(A) reduced the value of the first plot to Rs.4,00,000 and the value of second plot to Rs.85,000. He observed that the location of the plot has not been mentioned in the order and hence its value is reduced. The learned D.R. contended that this, observation is patently incorrect because in the assessment order, it is clearly mentioned that both the plots are commercial in. nature. The contention of the learned D.R. is correct being born of from record, is accepted and valuation of both the plots as made by the Assessing Officer is restored.
5. The appeal, succeeds as shown above.
(Sd.)
MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY,
Accountant Member.
(Sd. ) KHALID WAHEED AHMED, judicial Member.
6. KHALID WAHEED AHMED (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑‑With due respect for my learned sitting Accountant Member, I do not agree with her findings whereby the valuation of both the plots as made by the Assessing Officer is restored. In my opinion, the CIT(A) has allowed the reduction in valuation of the properties under consideration not for the reason that the plots were not commercial in nature. In the case of plot 5 Kanal and 12 Marla 5 Sarsahi at Machekey, the Assessing Officer has referred to the Inspector's Report whereby the value of this plot stated to be commercial one was proposed to be adopted Q Rs.5,000 per Marla, however, the Assessing Officer adopted the rate of Rs.4,500 per Marla. Similarly, the value of plot 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas at Machekey has also been adopted by the Assessing Officer (& Rs.4,500 per Marla. No basis whatsoever has been given by the Inspector or the Assessing Officer for adopting their estimates of the rate of land. The CIT(A) reduced the value of the first plot to Rs.4,00,000 with the observations that the location has not been pointed out. Similarly, the value of the plot of 1‑Kanal and 3 Marla; has been reduced by the CIT(A) from Rs.1,03,500 to Rs.85,000. The estimate adopted by both the authorities below are bald estimates. In my opinion, this being a case of one's estimate replaced by another, no interference by the Tribunal is called for because the value fixed of these two plots by the CIT(A) at Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.85,000 against the same assessed at Rs.5,04,000 and Rs.1,03,500 respectively does not appear to be unreasonable.
(Sd. )
KHALID WAHEED AHMED,
Judicial Member.
7. Since a difference of opinion has arisen on the issue of valuation of plots, the case is referred to the Headquarters for opinion of the third Member.
(Sd.)
KHALID WAHEED AHMED,
Judicial Member.
(Sd.)
MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY,
Accountant Member.
MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑‑This difference of opinion is entrusted to me by the Honourable Chairman. The appeal was fixed for today i.e. 6‑12‑2001. Neither the assessee nor the Revenue has appeared. They are proceeded ex parte. I decide this case under Order 20, rule 2 of the ITAT Rules.
Having gone through the order minutely and after perusing the record, the controversy between my both the learned Members, can be reduced to the following:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Assessing Officer is to be restored or order of CWT (A) vis a‑vis valuation of two plots only, in dispute, is to be upheld."
Value of the two disputed plots one measuring 5 Kanals 12 Marlas, 5 and Sarsais at Machekey and the other 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas also at Machekey has been adopted at Rs:4,500 per Marla by the Assessing Officer. The respective value of both the plots came to Rs.5,40,000 and Rs.1,03,000 which were reduced by the CWT (A) to Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.85,000 respectively by observing that the location of the plot has not been mentioned in the order.
At the material time for making the valuation, it was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to have adhered to rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 as amended uptodate. There is no need of giving the details of Rules as it has not been adhered to in the present appeal.
The Assessing Officer in disregard to the prevailing rules has baldly estimated both the plots in view of Inspector's Report @ Rs.4,500 per Marla. The CWT(A) has also hit in the dark and reduced the value observing that the exact location of the plots has not been given.
The perusal of both the impugned orders shows that it is a bald estimate which has been substituted by another by CWT(A). In such sort / of cases normally this Tribunal does not interfere. Therefore, I, agreeing with the findings of my learned Judicial Member, hold that this is one estimate against the other in which this Tribunal normally does not interfere. Therefore, the findings of the CWT(A) vis‑a‑vis the two above‑said disputed plots are upheld.
The nutshell of the discussion is that the appeal of the Revenue fails.
C. M. A. /M. A. K./209/Tax (Trib.) Appeal failed.