1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Kabirul Hasan, Judicial Member and Syed Shaukat Ali Zaidi, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Kabirul Hasan, Judicial Member and Syed Shaukat Ali Zaidi, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khursheed Ahmed, I. T. P. for Appellant.
- Muhammad Majid Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13(1)(aa)
Deemed income
Gift of immovable property to assessee by a person not related to the assesee
Gift was made through a registered gift deed and mutation was also effected accordingly
Rejection of such gift deed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that donor was not related to the assessee and adding an unexplained amount as deemed income to the assessee's income was not justified in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
3. The learned A.R. for the assessee has stated that the gift of property was registered under registered under registered gift deed, and this fact is not denied by the assessing officer. The reason for non acceptance of gift was that the donor was not related to donee and in this respect the learned A.R. has submitted that under the Muhammadan Law, there is no such condition that the donor and donee and must be related and no other reasons have been assigned for non acceptance of the Gift Deed, therefore, the assessing officer has erred in holding that since she donor and donee are not related, therefore, the gift is invalid, and is not correct. In this respect he has relied on relevant provision of Muhammadan Law.
4. The learned D.R. has submitted that admittedly there was no relationship between donor and donee and, therefore, the gift was not proper and that was rightly disbelieved by the assessing officer. The orders of the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) are proper and may be upheld.
5. We have heard both the learned representatives and perused the record.
6. We have considered the relevant provisions of Muhammadan Law and we are in agreement with the learned A.R. of the assesee that there is no such binding case of gift the relation of donor and donee must be established, the only overriding factor is that the Gift is made by donor owing to love and affection. In this respect, the extract from the property register was examine by us, we find that the mutation has been made in the name of the assesee on 21-3-1991.
7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the gift-deed was unjustifiably not accepted, and the plea that the donor and donee were not related was not the requirement of the law and under the Muhammadan Law no such restrictions can be imposed and, therefore, we allow this appeal and delete the amount of Rs. 1,64,616 made therein. PENALTY APPEAL UNDER SECTION 111 OF THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE,1979. In view of our finding on the main order under section 62/65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 this penalty is not maintainable, and is hereby cancelled.
9. Both these appeals are disposed of as above. M.B.A./362/Trib. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.