2008 P T D (Trib.) 290
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Rasheed Ahmad Sheikh, Judicial Member and Mian Masood Ahmad, Accountant Member
W.T.As. Nos.1987/LB and 1986/LB of 2001, decided on 03/11/2007.
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
---S.3---Charge of wealth tax---Association of persons---Assessment of property in the hands of co-owners assigning them the status of association of persons in spite of filing various documents as proof acknowledging the factum of family arrangement and copies of PT-I Forms issued by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department---Assessee had also contended that present was the case of double assessment since individual shares had already been assessed in the hands of some of the co-owners---Validity---Record showed that division of property had been acknowledged by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department----Assessing Officer's only reservation was that the same could not be accepted with retrospective effect---Family arrangement duly recorded in the Excise and Taxation Department's record was not accepted---Appellate Tribunal accepted the various explanations put forth by the assessee---Documentary as well as circumstantial evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant the assessment of the subject property in the hands of its co-owners and not in the hands of association of persons----Orders of both the authorities below were set at naught by the Appellate Tribunal and Assessing Officer was directed to file the proceedings in the case of association of persons---Revenue was at liberty to proceed to assess the shares of various individuals in their own hands if so warranted.
Muhammad Zaman v. Muhammad Jamil and 4 others 1992 CLC 873 and Income Tax Officers v. Narayanganj Company Pvt. Ltd. 1971 Taxation 223 (SC) ref.
Mumtaz-ul-Hassan for Appellant.
Abdul Rasheed Ch. D.R. for Respondent.
ORDER
The applicant AOP has come up in these further appeals to assail the consolidated appellate order pertaining to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The impugned order, dated 12-9-2001 was recorded by the learned CIT(A) Zone-V, Lahore. The appellant feels aggrieved of assigning it the status of AOP for the purposes of assessment under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (the repealed Act). Perusal of the available records reveal that the appellant has a chequered history of assessments for the two assessment years under consideration. The property, known as Rana Chambers, Anarkarli Lahore, on the valuation dates relevant to the two assessment years under consideration, was jointly owned by Rana Nazar-ur-Rehman, Mr. Zohair Rana, Mrs. Saima Rana, Miss Lubna Rana, Mr. Tariq Rana and Dr. Sohail-ur-Rehman Rana. The Assessing Officer formed the opinion that this being the case of joint ownership, the property' had to be assessed in the hands of the AOP comprising the above noted individuals. On behalf of the, appellant, it was explained that all the co-owners had partitioned the subject property among themselves. In proof thereof various documents acknowledging the factum of family arrangement and the copies of PT-I forms issued by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department were produced. It was also pleaded that this was the case of double assessment since individual shares had already been assessed in the hands of some of the co-owners. The Assessing Officer was, however, not convinced. He proceeded to assess the subject property in the hands of the co-owners assigning them the status of AOP. This was just the beginning of the appellant's agony. He knocked at the doors of the learned first appellate authority who vide order, dated 10-10-1995 set aside the assessment order and remanded the issue for re-adjudication with certain directions. The appellant again presented the case before the Assessing Officer and tried to convince him. The submissions made by the appellant however fell on deaf ears. The Revenue did not change its stance as to the status of the appellant for the purposes of the wealth tax assessment. The assessee again approached the learned first appellate authority for getting relief. Sympathy was all that he could get. The appellate order, dated 31-3-1998 desired the appellant to go back to the assessing authorities and again try to convince them. Of course, the assessing authority was directed that reassessment be made as provided under the law. The result of the reassessment proceedings was but obvious. The Revenue did not feel' like changing its stance. Still not disappointed and dejected, the appellant sought help from the learned first appellate authority. The learned first appellate authority, vide appellate order, dated 12-9-2001 against desired the assessing authority to have recourse to the relevant legal provisions.
All this futile exercise of running from pillar to post has now brought the appellant before us. Hence these two appeals.
The learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the various orders passed by the assessing authorities as well as the learned first appellate authorities to vehemently agitate that the Revenue was not justified in discarding the documentary evidence provided to confirm the division of property. He relies upon the case of Mr. Muhammad Zaman v. Muhammad Jamil and 4 others, cited as 1992 CLC 873, to say that documents relating to Excise and Taxation Department had evidentiary value regarding ownership. The case of Income Tax Officers v. Narayanganj Company (Pvt.) Ltd., reported as 1971 Taxation 223 (SC), is also quoted with favour to exhibit that where income of a joint venture had already been charged to tax in the respective hands of the associates, comprising AOP, the same income could not be charged to tax in the hands of the AOP as a separate entity.
The learned DR submits that since the matter was in the hands of the Assessing Officer and the appellant had a choice to explain its position, the impugned order did not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant informs that the reassessment for the assessment years under consideration had already been completed whereby the Revenue earlier stance as to appellant status had been repeated.
We have considered the rival arguments and consulted the various orders passed by the Revenue Authorities from time to time. This appears to be gruesome example of miscarriage of justice. The appellant has been made to . suffer the extreme mental, if not physical, suffering just because of the apathy on the part of the concerned authorities. The appellate authorities, instead of taking cognizance of the matter and resolving the issue in the light of the provisions of law, repeatedly threw the appellant's case at the mercy of the Assessing Officer who were stubbornly resolute and resistant to persuasion so as not to move an inch from the stance they had once taken.
Perusal of the record shows that the division of property had been acknowledged by the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department w.e.f. 1996-97. The Assessing Officer's only reservation was that the same could not be accepted with retrospective effect. The explanation put forth on behalf of the appellant that the family arrangement could find place in the Excise and Taxation Department's record only at the time of the following survey was not accented. But we have no hesitation in accepting the various explanations put forth on behalf of the appellant in this regard. Documentary as well as circumstantial evidence brought on record is sufficient to warrant the assessment of the subject property in the hands of its co-owners and not in the hands of the AOP.
Result of the above discussion is obvious. The orders of both the authorities below are hereby set at naught. The Assessing Officer is directed to file the proceedings in the case of the AOP while giving effect to this order. The Revenue is at liberty to proceed to asses the shares of various individuals in their own hands if so warranted.
Both the appeals succeed in the manner indicated above.
C.M.A./184/Tax (Trib.)Appeal accepted.