1981 PLP (Trib (PTD)

S. M. Sibtain, D. R. for Respondent. MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI (PRESIDENT).‑--This appeal is directed against the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax A‑Range, Karachi dated 18‑10‑1978 whereby he has set aside the order of assessment to be made de novo in accordance with law. 2. The dispute in this appeal concerns the valuation of an immovable property situated at Jamshed Road, Karachi. The assessee had disclosed its value at Rs. 22,800 whereas the Wealth Tax Officer estimated the same at Rs. 3 lakh, in consideration of the fact that it is situated on main road and in an area where the value of the property is very high. On appeal the assessee's stand before the learned A. A. C. was that the property was self‑occupied and could not be valued in the light of Annual Letting Value adopted by the M. K. C. and that the VV. T. O. has fixed its value at a figure which is higher than 10 times the Annual Letting Value, without obtaining the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Wealth Tax. The learned A. A. C, observed that the counsel for the appellant could not satisfy him on the point of Annual Letting Value of the property but he found his objection regarding lack of approval to be forceful. Consequently he set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as stated above. 3. Mr. Ebrahim, F. C. A., the learned Authorised Representative of the appellant reiterated the same contentions before us which were raised before the first appellate authority. He sought to place reliance on the Annual Letting Value fixed at R8. 1,890 by the K. M. C. He was on our inquiry, unable to give the year for which it related. A perusal of the assessment order also does not show that the Annual Letting Value as fixed by the K. M. C. was available to the Assessing Officer and that it was found to be relevant by him. The W. T. O. has obviously proceeded to estimate the value of property, as already stated, on the basis of its location. In doing so, he unfortunately seems to have completely ignored the proviso of rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax‑Rules. Proviso attached to sub‑rule (3) of rule 8 in clear terms provides that the W. T. O. shall not except with the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax determine the value of an property at a 'sum higher than 10 times the gross annual rental value of such property. The term "Gross Annual Renal Value" has been defined in the explanation, 'to mean the sum from which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year'. The Assessing Officer, it is clearly dis cernible from his impugned order, did not in the least make any effort to determine the Annual Letting Value of the property in question either himself or adopt the Annual Letting Value as determined by the concerned Excise and Taxation Authority or any other competent local authority. In the absence of adoption/determination of the Annual Letting Value it could not be said with certainly that W. T. O. has actually determined the value of the property in question at a sum higher than 10‑times the gross annual rental value thereof. The learned A. A. C. on the one hand rejected the plea of the appellant regarding the Annual Letting Value of the property being Rs. 1,890, but still, on the other hand, he arbitrarily found the determined value to be more than 10‑times the gross annual rental value and consequently held the order as bad in law for want of the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax. The law does not envisage that the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax is to be obtained in each and every case but it makes it imperative only in cases where the value of any property is to be determined of a sum higher 'than 10‑times the gross annual rental value of such property. However, as already pointed out, the W. T. O. has proceeded to determine the value of the property in question without complying with all the require ments of sub‑rule (3) of rule 8 of the Wealth Tax Rules, His estimate is even otherwise absolutely bald and without any basis. We would therefore uphold the order of the learned A. A. C. but for different reasons, as spelled out hereinabove. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.