(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14‑3‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Income Tax Appeals Nos.7/2001, 6/2001 and 8/2001 respectively).

(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.27‑‑‑Interference by High Court under S.27 of the Act‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Such interference could be made only on a question of law.

(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑

‑‑‑Ss.16(3), 17, 27 & 29‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Wealth escaping assessment in respect of property treating same to be assessed as Association of Persons and not as an individual‑‑‑Appeal against such determination filed by assessee was accepted, but Tribunal restored the status of assessee as that of an Association of Persons‑‑‑High Court dismissed appeals filed by assessee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Dispute in the present case pertained qua determination of status of property as assessee claimed itself to be an individual, while Department treated same to be Association of Persons‑‑‑Property in question was indivisible having only one staircase‑‑‑Site plan of property, had been got approved by assessee in his own name from Municipal Corporation ‑‑‑Assessee after raising construction over property made gift to his wife, minor daughter and three sons, whereas land underneath the Plaza remained still in the name of assessee‑‑‑Factual controversy, whether property could be treated in individual capacity or same had got the status of Association of Persons, had been determined by Tribunal after considering factual aspects of the case‑‑‑Questions formulated by assessee in its memo of appeal before High Court had no legal value as the matter was totally a factual controversy‑‑‑Judgment of High Court was unexceptionable as interference under S. 27 of the Act could be made only on a question of law‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petitions for leave to appeal in circumstances.

Zia Harder Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court with C. M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th May, 2002.

ORDER

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against a single judgment, dated 14‑3‑2002 whereby a learned Division of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissed three appeals filed by the petitioners under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), maintaining the earlier determination, dated 31‑10‑2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

Briefly narrated facts of the case are that .the petitioners submitted Wealth Tax Returns for the assessment years 1992‑93, 1993‑94, 1994‑95 and 1995‑96 in respect of their property known as Jalil Centre, Abdali Road, Multan. Their status as an individual was assessed under section 16(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Wealth Tax, Multan, vide hid order dated 7‑2‑1995. However, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income‑tax/Wealth Tax, Range‑IV, Multan, in exercise of his powers under section 17(b) of the Act, modified the above order and treated the aforesaid property to be assessed in the state of A.O.P. (Association of Persons). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the petitioners under section 17 of the Act.

The petitioners assailed the aforesaid determination of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax (Appeals), Multan, who accepted their appeals vide his order, dated 2‑3‑1999 directing the Assessing Officer to assign the valuation of the above property in individual hands of the owners. The respondent‑department filed three appeals before the Tribunals which were accepted by means of an order, dated 31‑10‑2000 restoring the status of the assessee as that of an A.O.P. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, filed three appeals before the Lahore High Court at Multan, which have been dismissed by a learned Division Bench through a consolidated judgment, dated 14‑3‑2002, impugned herein. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.

We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. The dispute in this case pertains qua determination of the status of above property. The assessee claims itself to be an individual while the department has held it as an A.O.P. and this question of fact has been approved by the Tribunal. We have also noticed from the impugned judgment that the property in question is indivisible having only one staircase. The site plan of the property in dispute was got approved by Khizar Abbas Gardezi in his own name from the Municipal Corporation, Multan, on 12‑11‑1990 in individual capacity. After raising construction on it he made a gift to his wife, minor daughter and three sons. It is worth mentioning here that the land underneath the Plaza still stands in the name of Khizar Abbas Gardezi. The factual controversy, whether the disputed property could be treated in individual capacity or it had got the status of A.O.P., had been determined by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal had also made reference to certain other factual aspects of the case so as to reach at the conclusion that the property had acquired the status of A.O.P. After mentioning the afore-stated features of the case, the Tribunal had also advanced additional reasons for treating it as A.O.P. which are in the following terms:‑‑‑

"8. After considering these arguments and perusal of assessment record which further shows that only one electricity meter in the name of Mr. Khizar Abbas Gardezi is installed in the building and commonly owned portion of the property such as one strong room, one manager's room, one kitchen and two toilets are in the occupation and use of various tenants but separate rent agreement in respect of these portions of the property have not been executed. It is also observed that PT‑I Form, dated 24‑3‑1998 which was issued in cancellation of earlier four PT‑I Forms cannot be considered as a matter occurring after the assessment years under consideration because original four PT‑I Forms were cancelled and hence. they are non‑existent, on the basis of evidence available on record. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer on the point of status assigned to the assessee as that of an A.O.P. is restored in this case in all the years under consideration."

The impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in dismissing the appeals of the petitioner is unexceptionable as under section 27 of the Act, interference can only be made on a question of law. The questions formulated by the petitioner in its memo of appeal before the High Court were as under:‑‑

(1) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be vitiated being based partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant material, conjectures and surmises?

(2) Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be vitiated on account of its having relied upon assumptions ignoring the material evidence and for relying upon irrelevant material?

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to assess the appellant in the status of an A.O.P. is proper and correct?

By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the aforesaid questions' have got any legal value as the matter is totally a factual controversy.

Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, these petitions being devoid of any force are dismissed and leave refused.

S.A.K./J‑30/SC Petitions dismissed.