Mst. ILYAS JAN ALAM, LAHORE VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE, 2002 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2548 (2002)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----

----Ss.13(2) & 136(1)---Unexplained investment---Estimating market value of property---Prior approval under S.13(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Requirements---Revenue Authorities estimated the market value of the property in question without adverting to S.13(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Estimation of property without prior approval of Inspecting Additional Commissioner was invalid.

Messrs Khurram Sagir Industries Lahore v. CIT Zone-A; Lahore in CTR No. 107 of 1991 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280 fol.

Ahmed Shuja Khan for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue.

ORDER

The Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law which are stated to have arisen out of their order dated 9-9-1986:--

"(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned addition of Rs.2,54,180 was legally invalid for failure of the ITO in adverting to section 13(2) and for want of statutory prior approval of the IAC under section 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance to estimate the market value of the property .in question?

"(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal in determining the market value of land and superstructure of the house purchased by the assessee were not supported by any evidence or reasonable basis and it also misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record?

"(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of determining the market value of the old house purchased by the appellate as adopted by the Tribunal, was erroneous.

(d) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has violated the principle of natural justice by adopting those instance for determining the market value of the house purchased by the assessee which were neither confronted to the assessee nor were actually identical?

2. Learned counsel for-the Revenue at the outset agrees that in view of a recent judgment passed in C.T.R. No.107 'of 1991 re: Messrs Khurram Sagir Industries Lahore v. CIT Zone-A Lahore answered on 26-10-2000 the answer to question No. l has to be in the affirmative. In that order we benefited from a recent judgment of Karachi High Court in re: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Kassim (2000 PTD 280).

3. The other three questions in view of our affirmative answer to question No.1 need not be answered being only of consequential in nature.

4. Reference disposed of accordingly.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./I-121/L

Order accordingly.