VS, 2009 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 900 (2009)

Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----Ss. 3, 16(5) & 23---Charge of wealth tax---Assessment---Representative of the company contended that the company did not own any immovable property which could be subjected to wealth tax as done by the Assessing Officer---Reassessment proceedings were finalized ex parte and the assessee was once again condemned unheard and the "core" issue of ownership of property which was a "sina qua non" for levy of wealth tax was missing in the case---Documentary evidence of the property was also furnished---Validity---Case was remanded by the Appellate Tribunal to the assessing authority for de novo assessment after taking into account the assessee's contention along with supporting documentary evidence that the assessee did not own the property in question and levy of wealth tax was unwarranted in the case---Assessing Officer was further directed to provide opportunity to the assessee to present his case and assessee was also advised in his own interest to cooperate in the re-assessment proceedings.

Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant.

S.A. Masood Raza Qizalbash, D.R. for Respondent.

ORDER

The titled wealth tax appeals pertaining to assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01, have been preferred by assessee, arise out of order passed by the learned CIT(A), Zone-I, Lahore, dated 18-6-2007.

2. The assessee has also preferred Additional Grounds of Appeal which are taken up for adjudication and as per Additional Grounds of Appeal filed, the assessee contested the order of the CIT(A) following grounds:--

(1) That the levy of the Wealth Tax upon this assessee is violative of the charging section 3 read with section 2(16) as the immovable property titled as "crown arcade" subject to tax, does not belong to the assessee.

(2) That superstructure raised by way of assessment under sections 16(5)/23 dated 27-11-2006, must fall to ground as the basic order passed under section 16(5) on 30-6-2004, is void ab initio as the same was passed by an incompetent authority, and beyond limitation.

(3) That the order passed under sections 16(5)/23 on 27-11-2006, is un-unsustainable in law as the notice, which was entailed as ex parte order, was not served in accordance with law.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the original assessments for the years 1999-00 & 2000-01, were completed under section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, at net wealth of Rs.24,693,976 each. On appeal filed by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 1-6-2005, has set aside the case. The re-assessment proceedings were again completed ex parte due to non-compliance of statutory notices, allegedly, issued by the Taxation Officer. In the re-assessment completed under section 16(5)/23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, the Taxation Officer repeated the same calculation of wealth as done before in the first round of assessment for the years 1999-00 & 2000-01.

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the treatment accorded by the Taxation Officer. The learned CIT(A) after hearing the arguments of the AR, has observed that it is quite evident from the perusal of combined assessment order that ample opportunity of being heard was afforded while complying with the directions of the CIT(A) but the assessee did not turn up. It is further observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee has a non-cooperative attitude towards completion of assessment and never joined the proceedings to defend his case. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the Taxation Officer was justified in proceeding ex parte and repeating the original assessments in the absence of any documentary evidences and rebuttal of his findings.

5. We have heard both sides and have perused the orders passed by the authorities below. The learned AR argued vehemently before us that the company did not own any immovable property which could be subjected to wealth tax as done for the assessment years 1999-00 & 2000-01, by the assessing officer. According to the AR, the re-assessment proceedings were finalized ex parte under sections 16(5)/23, of the Wealth Tax Act, and the assessee was once again condemned unheard and the "core" issue of ownership of property which is a "sine qua non" for levy of wealth tax is missing in the case. The AR in support of his contention furnished before us documentary evidences of the property which had been subjected to wealth tax.

6. In this context, we are of the considered view that it would be proper if the case is remanded back to the assessing authority for de novo assessment after taking into account the assessee's contention along with supporting documentary evidences that he does not own the property in question and levy of wealth tax was unwarranted in the case. The assessing officer is further directed to provide opportunity to the assessee to present his case and the assessee is also advised in his own interest to cooperate in the re-assessment proceedings.

7. Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner and to the extent as dilated supra.

C.M.A./56/Tax(Trib.)Case remanded.