COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE `"A" EASTERN REGION, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD RAIZ, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2281 (2005)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

---Ss. 13(1)(d) & 136---Income Tax Rules, 1982, 8.207---Reference to High Court-Addition-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had made observations that "declared value evidenced by a registered deed should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer"---No valid ground had been shown for interference by the High Court with the observations of the Tribunal---Consideration of reference was declined in circumstances.

Ryas Khan for Appellant.

ORDER

In paras. 4 and 5 of its order, dated 8-6-1999, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore observed as under:--

"(4) The learned A. R. for the assessee contended that the assessing authority was not justified to make the addition under section 13(1)(d) of the Ordinance as the assessee has declared the value of shop on the basis of a registered deed. He further stated that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the declared value evidenced by a registered deed as 'envisaged by Rule, 207 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982. The learned A.R. submitted that sanctity of registered deed should not be disturbed unless the department was in possession of something contrary or had some solid evidence that the assessee had made more investment than declared. The learned A.R. also contended that in most of the cases this Tribunal had deleted the additions .made under section 13(1)(d) by holding that the declared value evidenced by the registered deed should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. With regard to the addition under section 13(1)(aa) it is submitted that the assessee had produced evidence before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, he was not justified to set aside the case on this issue. The estimation of sales and application of G.P. are also contested to be on the higher side and without any basis. The learned D.R. on the other hand supported the order of assessment for the reasons stated therein.

(5)After hearing the parties we are inclined to agree with the learned A.R. for the assessee. The value declared by the assessee was evidenced by registered deed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was bound to accept the same in normal course. Since -the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence to the contrary, we direct that the declared value of the shop should be accepted. However, on the issue of addition under section 13(1)(aa) estimation of sales and G.P. rate the case stands set aside as directed by the First Appellate Authority. Resultantly the addition made under section 13(1)(d) is deleted and rest of the relief is refused."

2. The Revenue through the present appeal claims consideration by this Court of the following questions:--

"Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in interfering in the first appellate order remanding the case to be decided afresh on merits and in deleting the addition made under section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979."

3. The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal infact upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority on the issue of additions under section 13(1)(aa) (estimations of sales and G.P. rate).

4. However, the additions made under section 13(1)(d) were deleted by the learned Tribunal in view of the observations that "the declared value evidenced by a registered deed should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer." This observation does not require any interference and no valid ground has been shown to do so. In view thereof, the question as proposed does not deserve consideration.

5. This appeal is disposed of as above.

M.B.A./C-108/LOrder accordingly.