1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

2.

2. Agricultural land. The property located in Chak No.284/RB Faisalabad 27 Kanals in `assessment year 1983-84, 25-3/4 Kanals assessment year 1984-85 and 23 314 Kanals during assessment year 1985-86 was claimed to be agricultural land. Valuation on the basis of PIU's was shown to be below the taxable limit. The I.T.O. treated parcel of 8 Kanals, 13 Marlas as urban land in assessment year 1983-84 while the entire holding was treated as urban property in the next two assessments. Land measuring 8 Kanals, 13 Marlas was held to be urban property on the basis of a khasra girdawari. Appellant has pointed out that in the said khasra girdawari, land measuring 8 Kanals 13 Marlas belonging to the brother of the appellant was actually shown to be non-agricultural whereas on the said page of Khasra girdawari appellant's bolding of 9 Kanals, 2 Marlas had clearly been mentioned as cultivated. It was also pointed out by appellant's authorized Representative that even in subsequent assessments i.e. for assessment year 10986-87 onwards the land had been treated as agricultural. It is thus evident that land measuring' 8 Kanals, 13 Marlas w6s treated as urban land on an erroneous assumption. Likewise the entire available land i.e. (25) limine in assessment year 1983-84 and 23 Kanals in assessment year 1985-86 was treated as non-agricultural without placing any material on record. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly shows that at least 1 parcel of land measuring 9 Kanals, 2 Marlas was still agricultural. Considering the facts available on record it is evident that the amount of Rs.4,14,000 representing value of 8 Kanals, 13 Marlas land was wrongly included to taxable assets for assessment year 1983-84. The said amount would, therefore, be excluded. So far as the next two assessments are concerned, evidence regarding the nature of 1 parcel of land measuring 9 Kanals, 2 Marlas is already on record. The position regarding the other land however, needs re examination. Only if the nature of the property had been changed by discontinuing its cultivation and conversion of the same into plots for sales, the property would be treated as non-agricultural. If, on the other hand, no steps had been taken to change the nature of the property the entire land would be treated as agricultural property for the next ten years also.

3. Haveli in Chak No.284/LB. Faisalabad. This property devolved on the assessee by inheritance on the death of his father on 31-12-1983, inclusion of this property in wealth tax assessment for assessment year 1983-84 was, therefore, unwarranted and would be excluded from the value of assets for assessment year' 1983-84. For assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, actual share of the property i.e., 7/36 would be taxed in the hands of the appellants instead of 7/16th share. The fact that the appellant had only 7.36th Share in inheritance had been accepted by the Act while discussing valuation of the house in Chak No.284/RB. Though he had mentioned that position of the Haveli was also the same but no specific direction had been recorded in his order. The I.T.O. will modify the assessment for Assessment Years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and adopt the valuation of the Haveli on the basis of the corrected share in inheritance. Shops. Valuation of 16 shops shown at Rs.1,80,000 for all three years was not accepted and was estimated at Rs.3,50,000, Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.4,00,000 for the three years 'respectively. The valuation for the first year does not appear to be unreasonable. However, enhancement of the same for the next two years was without any basis and apparently unjustified. Valuation of the shops for each of the three years is accordingly fixed at Rs.3,50,000.

5. Objections in respect of other properties were without any merit and do not warrant any interference.

6. The three appeals succeed as indicated above. C.M.S./355/Trib. Appeals accepted.