PTD 1998

1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)

N/A

Jurisdiction / Court
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
Decided Date
W. T. A. No. 180/KB of 1997-98, decided on 16th February, 1998.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mahboob Alam, Accountant Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Forum / Court Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
Bench Members Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mahboob Alam, Accountant Member
Parties N/A
Primary Law (b) Interpretation of statutes, (a) Income-tax
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Interpretation of statutes, (a) Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mahboob Alam, Accountant Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Interpretation of statutes (a) Income-tax

Representation

  • Ebrahim Dahodwala, F.C.A. for Appellant.
  • Muhammad Majid, D.R. for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 12th February, 1998.
  • 2. Heard Mr. Ebrahim Dahodwala, F.C.A., learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Majid, learned representative for the department.

Headnotes / Summary

C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1994, dated 10-7-1994

C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1994, dated 17-7-1994

Valuation of land and buildings in Karachi-- Determination

Principles.

Ambiguity in fiscal laws

Mode to resolve

Principle

If there is any ambiguity in respect of fiscal and tax laws same is to be resolved in favour of assessee.

Judgment & Decree

Rs 195 101 - - - -

4. Built Up Res. Prop.Per Sq.Yd. Rs 1884 1461 998 650 550 400

5. Built up Comm . Prop.see(a) Rs 3912 2992 2245 1485 900 675

6. Built up Comm. Prop. see (b) - - - - - -

7. Build up Flats per Sq. Ft. of Covered Area Rs 290 231 187 137 110 75

5. Mr. Dahodwala has pointed out that there is difference in the language by the CBR in its circular and the notification issued by the Collector and, therefore, confusion has taken place. He has pointed that in the valuation table issued by the Collector of Karachi valuation of open plots in the residential, commercial and industrial categories have been given separately while the valuation of built up residential properties, commercial properties and industrial properties have been given separately and the value of built up flats has been placed in another category. Elaborating his point of view he has submitted that the Collector of Karachi has not given cost of construction in the case of built up properties but has given a consolidated and average value of the built up properties, which expression includes land and building both. According to Mr. Dahodwala the rationale of this valuation is that after construction is raised on a plot of land, the land and building make a composite, property and thereafter, the value of land cannot be taken separately as the land does not remain available for independent use as in the case of open plot. Moreover, when the entire valuation table issued by the Collector of Karachi is seen, it appears that the value of open residential plot in Category II is given at Rs.867 while the value of built up residential property is given at Rs.1461 per sq.yd. On the other hand the value of built up flats per sq. ft of covered area is given at Rs.231 and thus if the value of per sq.yd is taken it comes to Rs:2,

079. He has further explained that the value of built up residential property given at Rs.1,461 is lesser than the value of built up flats for the reason that in case of plots there is no open land. So far the built up flat is concerned, the value of covered area is considered only, while arriving at the value of built up residential property an average of the covered area as well as open area has been token. He has further submitted that in the Circular issued by the C.B.R. it has been stated that in the case of residential house the value of land shall be taken equal to the value specified by the District Collector for the purpose of Stamp Duty and the value of building itself would be computed at the rates of cost of construction adopted by the District Collector for the purpose of Stamp Duty. These instructions are defective in the sence that the Collector has not given separate valuation of the land in the case of built up properties and likewise separate rate of the cost of construction has not been adopted by the District Collector but in the case of built up properties the entire property as such has been considered for the purpose of valuation. Thus, the instructions issued by the C.B.R. are not workable. He has submitted that while adopting the valuation as issued by the Collector for the purpose of Stamp Duty the Defective nature of the instructions issued by the C.B.R. is to be ignored because it is absolutely un-workable and confusing.

6. On the other the learned D.R. has supported the orders of learned two officers below submitting that they are in consonance with the directions issued by the C.B.R.

7. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned representatives for the parties. We have gone through the instructions issued by the C.B.R. and valuation table notified by the Collector of Karachi. We are persuaded to agree with the submissions of Mr. Ebrahim Dahodwala because when we read the provisions contained in Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3), we find that the value of lands and buildings is to be determined on the valuation date meaning thereby the estimated price which it will fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. The competent Authority for determining the value of properties for the purpose of sale is collected under the Stamp Act who has issued the valuation of a built up property in the valuation table according to which the Stamp Duty at the time of sale of the property shall be charged. Thus, keeping in view the principle that if there is any ambiguity in respect of fiscal and tax basis it at is to be resolved in favour of assessee, We hereby direct that the valuation of property should be taken as given in the valuation table issued by the Collector of Karachi. Since the value declared by the appellant is already on higher side on the value of property computed in accordance with the valuation table issued by the Collector of Karachi for the year 1994, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to accept the declared value. The appeal is allowed accordingly. M.B.A./523/Trib. Appeal allowed.