1989 PLP (Trib (PTD)

2. Learned counsel for the assessee, to begin with, has furnished a copy of the agreement executed on 15th day of April, 1980, between Mr. Bashir Ahmad and others and Mst. Zainab Bibi and others, to establish that since a commercial building bearing No.14 in Super Market, F-6, Islamabad, was partitioned between the parties and wag given effect to from 1-7-1979, there was no justification with learned CWT (Appeals) to have sustained order of the WTO in assigning the assessee the status of an AOP. He has, therefore, submitted that order of learned CWT (Appeals) may be vacated and the property under consideration may be ordered to be assessed for the purpose of wealth tax in accordance with the individual shares of the parties to whom it stood transferred with effect from 15th day of April, 1980. This plea has, however, been opposed by learned DR who in support of sustaining order of the authorities below has relied on an amendment added to Section 2 (m) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963, (hereinafter called the Act). Based on the said amendment which was added to section 2 (m) of the Act by the Finance Ordinance, 1980, learned DR has requested for sustaining order of the authorities below on the ground that the property under question having vested in more than one person, status of an AOP as rightly assigned to the assessee. 3 Having heard both parties at some length it has not been possible for us, to accept plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that on the, basis of an agreement, dated 15th day of April, 1980, any right, title or interest in the property under consideration had passed on to the parties. With this finding, we now turn to examine next objection of the assessee, which is of great significance as a finding on it will clinch the issue one way or the other.

4. Next objection taken by learned counsel for the assessee relates to the fact that as property bearing No.14, Super Market, F-6, Islamabad, was partitioned by virtue of an agreement deed dated 11th day of January, 1982, and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, on 23rd day of January, 1982, the said property from 23rd day of January, 1982, passed on to the concerned persons and, therefore, wealth tax assessments for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84 could only be made in the individual hands of the parties. He has, therefore, submitted that at least for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84, order of the authorities below may be modified by the Tribunal. Even this plea has been resisted by learned DR on behalf of the department who in support of his contention has relied on Circular No.1568-S (WT)/80, dated 22-9-1980, issued by the Central Board of Revenue, the relevant part of which reads as under:- "the right, title or I interest to or in any immovable property is determinable in the eye of the law on the basis of position obtaining in Government records. The registration of documents shall, therefore, be treated as the final evidence in this regard."

5. Arguing further, learned DR has submitted that since the term registration documents does not appear to refer to documents registered with an authority like a Sub-Registrar, it could not be said that any title in the property under consideration had passed on to the parties on the basis of a partition deed registered with the Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, with effect from 23rd day of January, 1982. He has, therefore, requested that order of the authorities below in assigning the status of an AOP to the assessee may be upheld.

6. On a careful interpretation of the relevant portions of Circular No.1568-S (WT)/80, dated 22-9-1980, We are unable to agree with the contention of learned DR that registration of documents with an authority like Sub-Registrar does not constitute "registration" doments. Such a narrow interpretation of the words registration of documents, if accepted, would render the Registration Act, 1908, as of no legal consequence in the eyes of law, and precisely on account of this reason it is not possible to accept such a narrow interpretation of the word registration of documents. In fact one of the relevant laws which governs registration of documents is the Registration Act, 1908, and as according to the endorsement on the partition deed, dated 23rd day of January, 1982, it stood registered with the Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, a fact which is not in dispute between the parties, we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the property under consideration passed on to the respective parties w.e.f. the date mentioned heretofore. In consequence thereof, on the valuation dates falling on 30-6-1982 and 30-6-1983, the property could only be charged to tax in the respective hands of the parties in their individual capacity and not in the status of an AOP. In reaching this conclusion, we have additionally relied on a case disposed of vide WTA Nos.14,15,16 (IB) 1984-85, dated 23-12-1985, wherein by virtue of para 9, it was held as under:- . "As has been stated above, property under reference was duly registered through an admission deed, dated 17-6-1981, with the Registrar of Property, Islamabad. Therefore, in respect of the charge year 1982-83, finding of the learned CWT (Appeals) with regard to status and the manner in which property under consideration should be assessed is upheld."

7. Before proceeding further, it is desirable to mention here that under identical circumstances, learned CWT (Appeals) had given the status of an individual to the assessee because the property had been divided and registered in the individual names. The foregoing finding of CWT (Appeals) was approved by the Tribunal, vide WTA Nos.14,15 and 16 (IB) 1984-85 dated 23-12-1985. Therefore, following the ratio of decision in respect of the cases mentioned heretofore, we hereby direct that property under consideration for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84 may be charged to wealth tax if it is liable to it, in the individual hands of the parties in whose name it stood transferred from 23rd day of January, 1982.

8. Finally, we may state here that objection taken by learned DR that in view of an amendment made in. section 2 (m) of the Act added to it, by the Finance Ordinance, 1980, property under consideration should have been charged to tax in the hands of 'an AOP, has not found favour with us as on the basis of a partition deed registered with the Sub-Registrar, Islamabad; it had stood transferred to the individual parties mentioned therein, and therefore, for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the assessee could not be treated as an AOP for the purpose of assessment to wealth tax. However, order of the authorities below in assigning the assessee status of an AOP for the charge year 1981-82 is maintained.

9. In consequence of the above order, while appeal of the assessee fails in respect of the charge year 1981-82, appeals for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84 succeed to the extent and in the manner indicated in paras 5 to

8. In view of the foregoing order, wealth tax assessments for the charge years 1982-83 and 1983-84, should be modified accordingly by the W.T.O. M.B.A.//75/T?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.