1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

(ii) House No.P-20 Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad:

5. In this property the assessee again holds 1/2 share with his sister-in-law (Brother's wife). The property is situated in the same locality (Jinnah Colony) and is on an area of 13 Marlas, 61 sq. ft. Value in the wealth statement was shown at Rs.350,000 again the registered Rs.450,000 (1/2 share Rs.225,000). The I.T.O. again finding that the declared value was not reasonable and renovation had been carried out and worked out the total value at Rs.921,950 wherein the assessee's share came to Rs.460,975 and after giving credit to the declared amount of Rs.350,000 added Rs.110,975 under section 13(1)(d). During the course of assessment proceedings the point of view of the assessee and the reply to notices under sections 62 and 13 were on the same lines as in case of the abovementioned property.

6. In appeal the CIT(A) reduced the cost of plot from Rs.55,000 per Marla to Rs.52,500 and cost of construction of renovation from Rs.100 per sq. ft. to Rs.75 per sq. ft.

7. Against the above decision of the First Appellate Authority 10th the assessee and Revenue are now before us where the assessee maintains that the confirmation of addition in the first house is without any justification and the reliefs allowed in the second property are also not called for. The Department, on 'the other hand, objects to the curtailment of cost of plot from Rs.55,000 per Marla to Rs.52,500 per Marla and renovation cost from Rs.100 to Rs.75 per sq. ft.

8. The learned A.R., arguing on behalf of the assessee maintains.

9. Property : 91/122 That in the case of other co-owner when the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) (on the basis of which additions in hand of the assessee has also been confirmed) appeal was preferred wherein vide I.T.A. No.4024/LB of 1991-92, dated 11-12-1995 the entire addition was deleted and it was directed that the declared value of the property should be accepted. Based, on this analogy it was pleaded that when facts and circumstances of the case were identical, therefore, the same yardstick and parameters should be applied. In support of his case the A.R., also referred to the treatment of the Department maintaining that the plot valued at Rs.55,000 per Marla (1/2 share at Rs.281,575) was less than the value declared at Rs.300,000 by the assessee himself. On the point of renovation it was pleaded that none had been carried out as no evidence, proof or material had been brought on record by the Department in support of its treatment. The report of the Area Inspector was also without any evidence and at the same time it was not? relevant as it had been conducted in 1990 while the property had been purchased in June, 1988. In view of these facts the declared value deserved to be accepted.

10. The learned D.R., other than relying on the treatment of the observations of I.T.O. could not controvert the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It was, however, pleaded that the action of the authorities below should be maintained.

11. We have considered the two points of view and keeping on consideration the earlier decision in the case of the other co-owner and that the Revenue has not been able to support its observation regarding the renovation we would direct that the addition be deleted and the declared value accepted. Property No.P-20

12. Objecting to the partial relief allowed by the CIT(A) the learned A.R., was of the view and opinion that the factors and circumstances of the investment in this property were the same as in respect of the above. Not only it was situated in the same locality, the value attached to the plot at Rs.55,000 per Marla (1/2 share Rs.363,675) was almost the same as declared by the assessee at Rs.350,

000. Further, the. aspect of renovation had nowhere been substantiated. This having been made on the same observations as in case of the first property deserved to be deleted.

13. The learned D.R. supports the actions of the authorities below and relies upon the findings of the First Appellate Authority maintaining at the same time that the relief allowed by the CIT(A) was not called for and the additions made by the I.T.O. should be restored.

14. We need not go further into the additions made under this head and find that assessee has declared the value of the property as worked out by the Department. No case has been made out viz-a-viz incurring of any expenditure on renovation. The two properties being situated in the same locality and additions having been worked out on similar lines deserve the same treatment. It is accordingly directed that the addition be deleted and declared cost accepted.

15. The two appeals stand disposed of accordingly wherein the Department fails in toto and the assessee succeeds. C.M.S:/391/Trib. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.