1985 PLP 39 (PTD)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑ The assessee has filed these two applica tions under section 27(1) of the Wealth Act relating to the assessment years 1965‑66 and 1966‑

67. In both the applications the following question has been pressed: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding the addition of Capital of Mrs. K.R. Captain, Mr. Farookh K.R. Captain and Miss S. K .Captain to the wealth. of the applicant assesses?" During assessment year 1963‑64 the applicant was carrying on business in partnership with his son Farrukh and daughter Miss S.K. Captain under the name and style of Farrukh Chemical Industries, Karachi. On 1‑1‑1960 the applicant gifted Rs.60,000 to his son Farrukh Captain and Rs.40,000 to his daughter Miss S.K. Captain. These donees invested these ‑moneys in the partnership, which was constituted under a Partnership Deed. On. the same date Mrs. Captain wife of the applicant gifted Rs.60,000 to her son Farrukh and Rs.40,000 to her daughter S . K .Captain and took both of her business in East Pakistan known as, Farrukh Chemical Industries East Pakistan. Both the firms i.e. Farrukh Chemical Industries, Karachi and Farrukh Chemical Industries, East Pakistan applied for registration under section 26 (A), but it was refused on the ground that for the assessment year 1960‑61 the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal' has held that both the businesses at Karachi and in East Pakistan continued to belong to the applicant, and they were not separate firms and businesses. The Wealth Tax Officer, therefore, for the assessment years 1965‑66 and 1966‑67 clubbed the entire capital accounts on Farrukh Chemical Industries East Pakistan standing in the name of different persons, in the hands of the applicant. These additions were made mainly on the ground that the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal for the preceding years has held that both the firms were not separate and different. Against this finding Reference applications were filed raising the following question: Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the transfer of East Pakistan business in favour of Mrs. Captain had not taken place is not based on any evidence on record? After considering the facts of the case, it, was held that there was no new material or facts before the Tribunal which could justify the change in the basis of assessment of the income of assessee on the ground that transfer of East Pakistan business in favour of Mrs. Captain had not taken place and the finding in this regard proceeded on mere conjecture, suspicion and surmises. So far this judgment has not been set aside and, therefore, the very basis on which the Wealth Tax Officer had added the capital in the hands of the applicant has vanished. In the circumstances we answer the question in the affirmative. M.B.A. Answered in the affirmative.