2003 PLP 984 (PTD)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 2002. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑The respondent/assessee in these further appeals under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is an individual and an assessee of the Wealth Tax Department. For the assessment years 1992‑93 to 1997‑98 his declared wealth was increased substantially by the Assessing Officer after discarding the declared version. He failed before the First Appellate Authority while Islamabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 12‑2‑1999 remanded the case to the Assessing Officer "for making afresh assessments after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and, to present necessary evidence regarding the ownership of the properties and by strictly following the provisions of rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 as interpreted by this Tribunal in its decision reported as 1999 PTD (Trib.) 394".

2. The appellant CIT Wealth Tax Zone, Sialkot claims that following questions of law have arisen out of the said order of the Tribunal. (i) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I. T. A. T. is justified to hold that first proviso to rule 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 is applicable for valuation of even those constructed properties which have not been let out." (ii) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I.T.A.T. is justified to interpret rule 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 that for valuation of constructed properties the lower of the values determined on the basis of market value of property and 10 times of G.A.R.V. as laid down to first proviso to the said rule be adopted contrary to the two provisions of rule 8(1A) that value determined shall not be less than the cost of acquisition of such asset." (iii) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I.T.A.T. is justified to direct that for determining market value of a constructed property, value of plot and building thereon, are not to be take into account separately."

3. After hearing the learned, counsel for the Revenue we are not inclined to entertain the appeals for, two reasons. Firstly a remand order generally does not operate to the prejudice of the Revenue. Secondly, the issue if a particular property disclosed at a particular rate was worth more than the disclosed price is necessarily an issue of fact which can hardly give rise to a question of law to be resolved and answered by this Court. It is by now well‑settled that only a substantial question of law can be referred to this Court for consideration and answer. None of the three questions as reproduced above in the given situation can be said to be substantial question of law.

4. Therefore, we will refuse to entertain and answer the same.

5. Disposed of.

6. This order will also govern I.T.A. 190 of 1999, I.T.A. 191 of 1999, I.T.A. 192 of 1999, I.T.A. 193 of 1999 and I.T.A., 194 of 1999. Q.M.H./C‑193/L Answer declined.