1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

1,54,000 19-11-1983 63,000 17-12-1983 2,48,000 6-3-1984 3,00,000 11-4-1984 1,00,000 26-6-1984 1,00,000 Total: 14,25,000 (Rupees Fourteen lacs twenty-five thousand only) Fifty per cent of the above amounts, i.e., Rs.7,12,500 belongs to you. (Sd.) (SAJJAD HYDER KHAN.)"

10. The second document is the letter, dated 4-2-1985 written by the respondent to his attorney Mr, Rafiq. The contents of the letter are as follows: "Dear Mr. Rafique; I enclose a copy, of letter received from Mr, Sajjad Hyder giving the detail of total amount of sale proceeds of agricultural land at Peshawar during the year ended 30-6-1984. This land belonged to our mother who had gifted the land to me and Asad Ali Khan equally. Out of the total amount of Rs. 14,25,000 (Rupees fourteen lacs, twenty five thousand only) my 50% share amounts to Rs.7,12,

500. I hope now you will be in a position to explain the increase in my wealth to the Wealth Tax Officer, Quetta. (Sd.) (ANWAR ALI KHAN) Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Manager, Sargodha Grain & Gen. Stores

11. The third document is the letter, dated 11-5-1985 addressed by Mr. Muhammad Rafique attorney of the respondent to the Wealth Tax Officer. In this letter while explaining increase in the wealth of the respondent for the Assessment year 1984-85. It has been stated as follows: "The total increase of the wealth is Rs.10,39,822 which has been invested on receipt of amount as sale of agricultural land at Peshawar from the attorney. Letter from the attorney showing the detail of sale Rs.7,12,500 is enclosed."

12. On perusal of the above documents produced by the respondent himself during the assessment proceedings vis-a-vis the gift-deed produced before us in second appeal we find that the gift deed, dated 27-6--1983 allegedly executed by the respondent in favour of his mother is not a reliable document. According to the gift deed dated 27-6-1983 the respondent divested himself of all the rights, title and interest in the property with effect from 27-6-1983 and on the other hand Mr. Sajjad Hyder Khan in his letter dated 15-9-1984 addressed to the respondent is stating that the agricultural land at Peshawar belongs to him and the sale proceeds also belong to him. The respondent has accepted this statement and in his letter dated 4-2-1985 addressed to his Manager Muhammad Rafique stated that, "this land belongs to our mother who had gifted the land to me and Asad Ali Khan equally".

13. If the land in question was again gifted by the respondent to his mother on 27-6-1983 there was no question of receiving the sale proceeds of the land during the year ending 30-6-1984 and asserting the ownership of the land by the respondent himself on 4-2-1985 and by his attorney and Manager Muhammad Rafiq in his letter, dated 11-5-1985 addressed to Wealth Tax Officer, Quetta. Another assertion in the gift deed that the respondent did not exercise any right of ownership by expropriating the property in any way during the tenure it remained with him as owner is belied from the fact that he has himself stated under his own signature that he has received the sale proceeds of the land to the extent of 50% share which amounted to Rs.7,12.500. There is another important contradiction in the version of respondent. It is stated on page 2 of the order, dated 20-4-1988 by learned A.A.C. of Income-tax, Hyderabad Range relating to the Assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 that, "the A.R. of the assessee. Appellant stated that the facts are that the land in question was never transferred in the name of the assessee". It is interesting to note that the A.R. of the respondent giving this statement was Mr. Muhammad Asghar Qazi himself. The first appeal was heard on 20th of April, 1988 and if Mr. Muhammad Asghar Qazi was asserting in April, 1988 that the property was never transferred to the respondent, how it does lie in his month to say in August, 1996 that the property was gifted by the respondent in favour of his mother on 27-6-1983 with the assertion that "the donor is in possession of the piece of land measuring 103455 sq.ft." and that "donor had received the subject-matter of the gift from the donee as gift out of love and affection of the donee as mother of the donor who is her son". All these contradictory pleas taken on behalf of respondent show that the respondent has been trying hard to wriggle out of the tax liability but while struggling to get out of the situation he has been tightening the noose on himself and now he is not able to take himself of the wood. Another important point which we would like to refer is that the alleged signature of the donee Mst. Amtul Rasool on the gift deed dated 27-6-1983 differs from the signature of Mst. Amtul Rasool on the arbitration agreement dated 20th of January, 1983 which is by now an admitted document and in pursuance whereof the arbitration award dated 28-2-1983 was given which was made a rule of the Court. The points of difference between alleged signature of Mst. Amtul Rasool on the gift deed, dated 27-6-1983 and the arbitration agreement as well as arbitration award are very conspicuous and are visible on very first glance. The arbitration agreement which is an admitted document was signed on 20-1-1983 and the arbitration award which is also an admitted document was signed on 28-2-1983 and the alleged gift deed by the-respondent in favour of his mother is stated to be signed on 27-6-1983 and, therefore, there is not much time lag in-between the two documents which may cause some difference in the signatures. Not a single letter of the alleged signature of Mst. Amtul Rasool on the gift deed dated 27-6-1983 tallies with the admitted signatures of Mst. Amtul Rasool on the arbitration agreement and arbitration award. For the foregoing reasons it is held that in addition to our finding that the gift deed is not admissible for the first time in second appeal, even on merits the document is not genuine and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this document.

14. Before concluding our discussion we would like to observe that the learned A.A.C., Hyderabad in his order dated 20-4-1988 while giving finding that the property was still owned by Mst. Amtul Rasool placed reliance on the entries in the Revenue Record. By now it is established rule of evidence that the mutations in the Revenue Record do not amount to the document of title. In the present case the right, title and interest in the property stood transferred in favour of the respondent in pursuance of the gift deed executed by Mst. Amtul Rasool in favour of the respondent, which fact was subsequently confirmed by the arbitration award. If the mutation in pursuance of the gift deed was not made in the Revenue Record it shall have no bearing so far the title in the property is concerned. Thus the finding of the learned A.A.C., Hyderabad dated 20-4-1988 while deciding first appeals relating to the Assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 and which was followed in all the subsequent years was the result of incorrect appreciation of facts and law which is not sustainable and is hereby vacated. The first appellate orders for all the assessment years under appeal are hereby vacated and it is held that in all the assessment years under appeal land near Peshawar was owned by the respondent and the assessing officer rightly included value thereof in the gross wealth of the respondent. The assessment orders on this point stand restored. 15 All the appeals at the instance of Department are allowed as above M.B.A./280/Trib Appeal allowed.