P L D 1964 W (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, (MEMBER). This is a revision petition under section 4 of the former Bahawalpur State Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1949 and is against the order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, dated 1‑9‑1960.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner gifted away some property belonging to him situated in village Bashir Ahmad Abad, Bhaung and Rahim Abad vide Mutations Nos. 59, 175 and 78 respectively, in favour of his, two sons and daughters, in 1953. He made a statement before the Revenue Officer that he would be responsible for payment of the Agricultural Income‑tax and the mutations were sanctioned on this understanding. The petitioner then made an application on 19‑4‑1955 to the Collector and requested that tax for the year 1954‑55 be levied on the donees, the Collector accepted the application vide his order dated 15‑5‑1955 and the tax was assessed as prayed. He made, another application to the same effect for tax due for the following year, and this resulted in a similar order by, the. Collector. On a subsequent scrutiny it was held by the succeeding Collector that the tax should have been levied against the donor and not the donees, as the donor had taken up responsibility for‑ its payment. After obtaining the required sanction from the Commissioner, both the orders of the Collector relating to the years 1954‑55 and 1955‑56 were reviewed on 21‑10‑1959 and the Collector ordered that the tax be recovered from the donor. In appeal, the Commissioner, has confirmed the Collector's order dated 21‑10‑1959. Aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner, Muhammad Afzal Khan has come up in revision on the following two grounds :‑ (i) that the Collector could not review the earlier orders of his predecessor; and (ii) that the transfer of the gifted lands was not with the object of evading tax, and that the Collector had passed the earlier orders on 15‑5‑1956 and 18‑1‑1958 , with reference to section 6 of the Act and had come to this very conclusion. I have heard arguments on both the points at length. With regard to the former: there is no force in the plea as the Act does make a provision for review. Under section 4 of the Act for the purpose of appeal, review or revision of an order passed under the Act is deemed to be an order of a revenue officer within the meanings of sections 13 to 16 of the Land Revenue Act: As. for the second point, section 6 of the Act clearly provides that any transfer of land or of interest therein effected after the 1st January 1949, which in the opinion of the Collector was intended to evade the tax shall' be ineffectual for the purposes of this Act, and the tax assessed on such land shall be payable by the persons who would have been liable for its payment if no such transfer had been effected or by his successor‑in‑interest. The orders dated 15‑5‑1955 and 18‑1‑1956. referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, do not appear specifically to be an expression of opinion by the Collector declaring the transfer as bona fide for the purposes of the Act.. These orders held the donees responsible for payment of the tax for the simple reason that by virtue of transfer of land they had become the owners. As a matter of fact there was no occasion for the Collector to express his opinion as contemplated by section 6 as the donor had himself taken up responsibility for the tax. To my mind the important point involved in the case is whether the statement of the donor before the attestation of mutations holding himself responsible for payment of the tax is binding upon him for all time or is it to hold good for the then current year only. It may be mentioned that the assessment of the tax is made from year to year on the basis of land revenue payable during the previous year. I am not at all clear about this point and since a decision on this issue is fundamental in character and will form the basis of tax assessment, I would refer the matter for consideration of the Full Board. Inform parties accordingly. A. M. K. LEGHARI, (MEMBER).‑The facts of this 'revision petition are given in detail in my order dated 29‑4‑63 which may be read as part of this order. The main point involved in the case was whether the statement of the donor before the attestation of the mutation of gift holding himself responsible for payment of Agricultural Income‑tax is binding upon him for all times or it to hold good for that year only. A reference was made to the Full Board, who held that the donor continued to be liable for payment of Agricultural Income‑tax and his subsequent statement resiling from his previous commitment do not alter the position In accordance with this finding, with which I am in agreement, I would hold that the petitioner has been rightly assessed to Agricultural Income‑tax and the revision petition stands dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.