Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 114 (2005)

(a) Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---

----R. 8(3), Expin.---Term "Gross Annual Rental ,Value" as used in Explanation to R. 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963---Implications stated.

The term and expression GARV as defined in Explanation to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 by itself implies that it is not necessary for a building or property to have actually been let out for the purpose of application of GARV rule. This Explanation defines "Gross Annual Rental Value" to be the one for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from time to time. The definition itself indicates that GARV is only a notional value on which a property could reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. The actual renting out of property for the purpose of application of this rule, therefore, is not required at all.

(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S.27---Appeal to High Court---Observations in impugned order regarding non-pressing of some grounds before Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Appellant, if had any objection/grievance against such observations, could seek a rectification of impugned order---High Court in referable jurisdiction would proceed on the facts found by Tribunal, unless those were, prima facie, against the record---Such situation was not available in the present case---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.

Nemo for Appellant.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th March, 2005.

JUDGMENT

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This further appeal under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 claims that following questions of law have arisen out of the impugned order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, dated 3-11-2001:--

(i)Whether under the facts. and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in confirming and holding that the authorities below are correct while estimating the value of the building in terms of Rule 8(3) on the basis of actual gross rent without allowing deductions for repair allowance and other expenses attachable to the rented building?

(ii)Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal is justified in confirming and holding that while estimating the value of upper portion, being used for residential purposes, the authorities below are correct in adopting 1/3rd of the value estimated for ground floor on actual gross rent basis without appreciating the nature of upper portion of the building occupied for residential purposes?

(iii)Whether in the absence of any expressed finding by the AAC, the learned Tribunal is justified in holding and adopting the presumption that the grounds Nos.5 and 6 taken before AAC were not pressed?

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that none of the aforesaid questions as framed arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 3-11-2001. As far the view of the Tribunal qua determination of the value of the properties under rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 is concerned, recently in a judgment recorded on 8-3-2005 in I.T.A. No.229 of 1999 we have observed as under:--

"The term and expression GARV as defined in explanation to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 by itself implies that it is not necessary for a building or property to have actually been let out for the purpose of application of GARY rule. The said explanation defines "Gross Annual Rental Value" to be the one for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from time to time. As noted above, the definition itself indicates that GARY is only a notional value on which a property could reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. The actual renting out of property for the purpose of application of the rule, therefore, is not required at all."

3. Since the order of the Tribunal appears to be in the line approved by this Court, no interference for the appellant/assessee can possibly be shown. The issue of allowing of different deductions was never mooted before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, rest of question No.1 and whole of the question No.2 as observed above do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. So is the case with question No.3 as framed. The assessee if she had any objection/grievance against the observations made by the Tribunal regarding non-pressing of some grounds of appeal case could very well seek a rectification of the order. This Court in referable jurisdiction proceeds on the facts found by the Tribunal unless these are prima facie against the record. However, that situation is not available in this case.

4. Appeal disposed of.

S.A.K./M-1231/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.