Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)--‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 16‑‑‑Assessment‑‑‑No value of plot acquired by the Government was declared‑‑‑Compensation was to be paid by the Government‑‑ Addition of value of such plot in net wealth by Assessing Officer‑‑ Reduction in value by First Appellate Authority subject to action under S.35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as and when compensation was paid by the Government‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Value of plot determined by the First Appellate Authority was still favourable to Revenue‑‑‑Assessee was no more owner of property in question and it was her right to receive compensation which should be valued‑‑‑Said right could not be more than the sum determined by the Land Acquisition Collector ‑‑‑Assessee had not received amount deposited in Tehsil Office‑‑‑Amount determined by the Collector was the only value determined till a higher valuation for the property in question was ascertained by relevant forums‑‑‑Assessee ought to have disclosed this amount as receivable instead of showing ownership of the said plot which did not belong to her any more‑‑ Approval of action by the First Appellate Authority in estimating the value of land was unjustified‑‑‑Appeal of the Department was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.

Nemo for Appellant.

Saadat Ali Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th July, 1998.

ORDER

NASIM SIKANDAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑‑The assessee in this departmental appeal for the year 1994‑95 is an individual who returned her net wealth for the year at Rs.23,97,708. The immovable properties disclosed included a plot at Jail Road, Lahore. No value in respect of the plot was disclosed on the ground that it had been acquired by the Government and was at present a part of Kinaired College, Lahore. The Assessing Officer however, finding that no evidence in support of claim of acquisition having been adduced, proceeded to estimate its value at Rs.10,00,000.

2. Learned First Appellate Authority CIT(A)‑III, Lahore by way of its order, dated 11‑12‑1997 partly agreeing with the submissions made before it directed reduction of the value of plot of Rs.3,00,000 subject to an action under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as and when the compensation was paid by the Government. The relief so allowed has grieved the Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the assessee is present and has been heard. None for the Revenue has appeared in spite of proper service. Therefore, this appeal is taken up for disposal by resort to Rule 20(2) of the ITAT Rules, 1981.

4. Learned counsel submits that the property having been acquired by the Government and no compensation so far having been received the valuation as determined by the First Appellate Authority is still favourable to the Revenue. Also informs that the assessee has not filed a cross appeal against the impugned order. He also relies upon a receipt issued by District Tehsil Office evidencing receipt of a sum of Rs.5,46,250 deposited by Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore. Obviously this sum is meant for payment as compensation to land owners. According to this receipt a piece of land measuring 292 Marlas and 10 sq. ft. was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore and the aforesaid amount giving an average price per Marla at Rs. 1,870 was meant to be distributed amongst a number of owners. The entitlement of the assessee as per this receipt is to receive compensation for five Marla only which comes to Rs.9,350.

5. After, considering the submissions made at the bar in the perspective of grounds taken we find the same to have been preferred only as a matter of course. Since the assessee is not in cross‑appeal we will refrain from making any observation in this regard. However, we find that the learned counsel for the assessee is correct in pointing out that the value of five Marlas plot as finally determined by the First Appellate Authority is still favourable to the Revenue. In fact the assessee is no more owner of the property in question and it was only her right to receive compensation which could be valued. That right could not be more than the sum determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore under the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It is further clear that the assessee has not received the amount deposited on 27‑2‑1991 in the said Tehsil Office of the Province of Punjab. The amount determined by the Collector is the only value determined till a higher valuation for the property in question is ascertained by relevant forums. In fact the assessee ought to have disclosed this amount as receivable instead of showing ownership of the aforesaid plot which did not belong to her any more. Learned First Appellate Authority rather approved the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the value of land which was all the more unfortunate.

6. By that as it may, as said above, this departmental appeal is hardly worthy of serious consideration and shall therefore meet its fate.

7. Rejected.

C.M.A./970/Tax(Trib.) Appeal rejected.