Dr. MUNAWAR HAYAT VS SPECIAL OFFICER OF WEALTH TAX/INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, COMPANIES ZONE-III, LAHORE, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2427 (2006)

Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 27---Erroneous inclusion of property in assessee's return---Appeal, competency of--Questions, if any, involved in appeal were, as to whether appellant/assessee had committed a bona fide error in showing his property in question as his net wealth in the return for relevant assessment year; and also as to whether appellant had gifted said through alleged gift deed or not---Said property to his daughter questions, evidently were pure questions of fact requiring a factual inquiry and evidence in which Tribunal did not enter into and did not adjudicate upon those questions 'and instead appellant's version, in absence of a revised return, was disbelieved and rejected---No questions of law arose in appeal deserving High Court's consideration and answer.

Ahmad Shuja Khan for Appellant.

Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th March, 2006.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---This judgment shall deal with and decide WTA No. 475 of 1999 and WTA No.476 of 1999 involving the identical controversy and being between the same parties.

2. During motion hearing on 12-12-2005, Mr. Ahmad Shuja Khan, Advocate for the appellant claimed exclusion of 14-FCC, Gulberg, Lahore from the assessment of the appellant Dr. Munawar Hayat on the sole ground that the said property had purportedly been transferred by the assessee to his daughter through a registered Hibanama/gift deed, dated 30-6-1994 but due to an error, the assessee continued showing this property in his wealth tax return as his net wealth. And that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the tax year 1995-96 validity set aside the assessment and remanded the matter for re-decision but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal through the impugned order illegally reversed the remand order of the Commissioner.

All the questions as raised and framed in the appeals by the appellant assessee were given-up as not pressed and the learned counsel for the appellant sought consideration and opinion of this Court on the above-referred only ground and question of erroneous filing of assessment by the appellant showing 14-FFC Gulberg, Lahore in the relevant return as the assessee's net wealth.

3. Examination of the memo. of appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 shows that neither any ground nor any question relating to the erroneous inclusion of 14-FCC in the assessee's return for the year 1994-95 has either been placed or raised. We also note that no such question was either raised by the assessee for this assessment year before the learned Income Tax Tribunal nor was this question ruled upon by the Tribunal. All the questions raised in appeal for the said year were specifically given-up and not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee.

4. In view thereof, no question exists for an answer by this Court. Accordingly Wealth Tax Appeal No.475 of 1999 is dismissed.

5. For the assessment year 1995-96, the learned Tribunal in paras. 22 and 23 of its order, dated 4-2-1999 held on the above-referred question as under:--

"(22) The learned A.R. argued that in the presence of the gift deed the setting aside was not justified while the D.R. was of the opinion that the assessee had not raised this issue before the S.O. and entertaining it as additional ground was not called for,

(23) We have seen the facts and records. The assessee declared the property in his return. No revised return was filed. On the basis of valuation a show-cause notice was issued. In reply the objection was to the valuation. It did not form an issue in the original grounds of appeal before the CIT(A); who entertained additional grounds on an issue which did not emerge out of the impugned order before him. He, CIT(A), has not justified his action by any authority. The facts also show that the assessee declared the property for tax purposes in 1994-95 and has been charged to it while he claims that the asset was gifted on 30-6-1994. Further he claims that minimum tax liability was paid for 1996-97 and 1997-98. For 1995-96 both the assessee and CIT(A) are silent. We find no justification either on law or fact in the decision of the first appellate authority. Setting aside is not called, The property is to be included in the hands of the assessee. For purposes of valuation we repeat that of 1994-95 i.e. Rs.60,00,000."

6. The learned Tribunal pertinently observed that the assessee had declared the said asset in his return but despite the discovery of the alleged mistake, no revised return was filed wherefor CIT(A) was not justified in entertaining an additional ground which did not emerge out of the impugned order of the Assessing Officer particularly in the absence of a revised return.

7. The questions, if any, thus are as to whether the appellant assessee committed a bona fide error in showing 14-FCC, Gulberg, Lahore as his net wealth in the return for the assessment year 1995-96 and also as to whether the appellant assessee had gifted the said property to his daughter Uzma Hayat through the alleged gift deed or not. These questions evidently are pure questions of fact requiring a factual inquiry and evidence in which the learned Tribunal did not enter into. Neither did the Tribunal adjudicate upon these questions. Instead the appellant's version in the absence of a revised return was disbelieved and rejected.

8. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that no questions of law arise in Wealth Tax Appeal No.476 of 1999 deserving this Court's consideration and answer.

9. Disposed of.

H.B.T./M-370/LOrder accordingly.