W.T.As. Nos.542/LB to 547/LB and 557/LB of 2003, decided on 13th October, 2004 VS W.T.As. Nos.542/LB to 547/LB and 557/LB of 2003, decided on 13th October, 2004
2005 P T D (Trib.) 937
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Ehsan-ur-Rehman, Judicial Member and Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, Accountant Member
W.T.As. Nos.542/LB to 547/LB and 557/LB of 2003, decided on /01/.
13th October, 2004. Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S. 16 & Second Sched., Cl. (3)---Assessment---Exemption---Agricultural land---First Appellate Authority, on the basis of findings of committee consisting of concerned Assessing Officer, Inspector of First Appellate Authority, assessee in person and legal counsel of the assessee, directed that share of land in respect of assessee to be accepted as agricultural land---Department contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in directing to accept the status of non-agricultural assets as agricultural when purchase deed clearly stated the purpose of purchase of land for construction of factory and the said land in caseof the other co-shares had been declared and assessed as non-agricultural asset---Validity---Other co-owners not contesting the charging to tax all the pieces of land owned by them could not authorize the Department for charging to tax which was in fact notchargeable under the specific provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1963---By quoting the unchallenged wrong done to another co-owner could not be made a basis by the Department for adversely affecting the assessee---Such combined act of co-owners vis- -vis department together could not make the assessee liable to wealth tax for such land and allowing relief was factually and legally quite fair and proper when the assessee challenged it before First Appellate Authority being illegal act of taxing land not liable to wealth tax---Order did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities and was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal---Department through its Assessing Officer on becoming a member in the committee had foregone its right to agitate any more and no such-like plea was raised before First Appellate Authority as a justification for making liable to wealth tax such piece of land in the hands of assessee---Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
W.T.As. Nos.1172/LB to 1178/LB of 2000, dated 20-11-2001ref.
Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for Appellant.
Liaqat Mehmood for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 2004.
ORDER
Through the titled appeals the Revenue/Department has assailed the single combined order, dated 3-6-2003 by submitting the common grounds of appeals in respect of sole identical issue in all the seven years.
Facts in brief of the case are that after a series of rounds of appeals reassessment has been framed by assessing the share in agriculture land as liable to wealth tax against the claim of exemption as the land is under cultivation, so is exempt from the levy of wealth tax. The learned First Appellate Authority resolved this controversy as to whether this share in piece of the land is chargeable to wealth tax or not, by constituting a committee consisting of the concerned Assessing Officer, Income Tax Inspector of learned CIT/WT(A) s office, assessee in person and the learned legal counsel of the assessee. The findings as recorded by this committee are being re-produced from the impugned order as under:--
In view of the findings of the committee it is clear that the asset is of agricultural nature and the Assessing Officer as per the findings has concurred to it as well. The share of the land in respect of the appellant is directed to be accepted as agricultural land for the relevant years as discussed above.
Now, Revenue/Department has come up in appeal in this Tribunal by submitting the following grounds:--
(1)ThatthelearnedCIT(Appeal)wasnotjustifiedindirectingto accept the status of non-agricultural assets as agricultural when the purchase deed clearly states the purpose of purchase of land for construction of factory and that the said land in the case of other co-shares bearing N.T. Nos. 19-01-0387792 and 19-01-0388107 has been declared and assessed as non-agricultural asset to the extent of respective shares.
(2)That the learned CIT (Appeal) while re-considering the issue, has not properly followed the directions mentioned at para. No.5 of learned ITAT s order W.T.As. Nos.1172 to 1178/LB of 2000,dated20-11-2001.
It is worth to be noted that the Assessing Officer who is a signatory on the memo. of appeal was a member of the Committee constituted by the learned CIT(A).
The learned DR has supported the assessment order and has opposed the order passed by the learned CIT/WT(A), but when his attention was drawn that what reason is left with the department for filing of the appeal when the Assessing Officer after a spot visit along with other members of the Committee have found the contention of the assessee/respondent as correct. The learned DR has nothing to submit as a justification to agitate it by filing appeal. The learned DR further submitted, that in the case of other co-owners the land has been taxed as a non-agricultural property and no appeal has been filed. The learned DR also failed to prove as a justification for charging to tax the agricultural land in the hands of the respondent/assessee, with this plea in the mind.
The learned AR in support of the impugned order has submitted that not agitating the valuation of agricultural land as a non-agricultural property is not to adversely affect the respondent/assessee by quoting as a justification for charging to tax the agricultural land. The learned A.R. further submitted that on a spot visit by this Committee, the Assessing Officer has an opportunity to see the land and has found that the entire piece of land was cultivated which was belonging to all the co-owners, not merely this but all the land which was surrounding this piece of land was a cultivated, with growing crops on it.
We have heard both the parties and have perused the record.
The Revenue/Department has not challenged the findings as recorded by the Committee but has taken a plea that the land was purchased for the purposes of non-agricultural use and in the case of other co-owners the chargeability to wealth tax has not been challenged. The fact that impugned land is agricultural one has not been called in question. It is the other co-owners not contesting the chargeability to wealth tax of their share, which has been taken as granting the right for assessing the piece of land in the hands of appellant/assessee. The other co-owners not contesting the charging to tax all the piece of land owned by them cannot authorize the Department for charging to tax which is in fact not chargeable under the specific provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. By quoting the unchallenged wrong done to another co-owner cannot be made a basis by the Department for adversely effecting the respondent/assessee. Such combined act of the co-owners vis-a-vis of the department together cannot make the respondent/assessee liable to wealth tax for this impugned land and allowing relief is factually and legally quite fair and proper when the assessee challenged it before the learned CIT/WT(A) the illegal act of taxing land not liable to Wealth Tax. So on this score also the impugned order cannot be called in question. The impugned order is not suffering from any legal as well as factual infirmities, thus is upheld. The Department through its Assessing Officer on becoming a member in the Committee constituted by the learned CIT/WT(A) has foregone its right to agitate any more, and importantly also because no such-like plea was raised before the learned 1st Appellate Authority as a justification for making liable to wealth tax this piece of land in the hands of assessee/respondent.
Keeping in view the discussion supra we do not find any merit in the appeals filed on behalf of the Revenue/Department, therefore, these are dismissed.
C.M.A./344/Tax (Trib.)Appeal dismissed.