P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Revision Side No. 288 of 1960‑61 decided on 28th September 1961, District Rahimyar Khan. Bahawalpur Agricultural Income‑tax Act (AII of 1949) S. 6‑S Sale of land held to be bona fide and not for evading tax‑Tax to be exempted from date of sale. Petitioner in person. Karim Bakhsh for Commissioner. This order will dispose of the two connected revision petitions of Sh. Manzur Elahi, Nos. 288 and 329 of 1960‑61, relating to levy of Agricultural Income‑tax on account of certain lands situat ed in village Amirpar District Rahimyar Khan. The facts briefly are that Sh. Manzur Elahi had gifted some of his property in 1951‑52 to his sons and wife and had also sold some of it in 1957 to a third party. He applied .to the Collector under section 6 of the Bahawalpur Agricultural Income‑tax Act XII of 1949, that all these transactions were bona fide i.e., not made with the inten tion of evading Agricultural Income‑tax no tax should, therefore, be levied on him for the lands involved in these transactions. The Collector held in 1959 that the sale by Sh. Manzur Elahi to a third party was not a be name transaction and the lands involved henceforth be not assessed to Agricultural Income‑tax as due from the petitioner. As regards the gifts to his sons and wife the Collector in 1958 held Sh. Manzur Elahi to be liable but directed that as the sons and the wife had in the meanwhile sold away some of the gifted lands to a third party who were not in any way con nected with them these sales were genuine transactions and no Agricultural Income‑tax thenceforward should be levied in respect of these areas which had been so alienated. Sh. Manzur Elahi made applications to the Collector for a review on the ground that these orders should take effect from the dates that the sales took place but the successor of the Collector declined to move in the matter. On appeal the learned Commissioner also held that the matter rested in the opinion of the Collector, was not subject to any judicial discretion, and, therefore, could not be interfered with. Sh. Manzur Elahi has now filed the two revision petitions under consideration. The plea which has been taken up by Sh. Manzur Elahi is the same namely, that the Collector had held the sales by himself and his sons and wife to be genuine transactions. He should, therefore, be exempted from the levy of Agricultural Income‑tax on the land so alienated from the dates of these sales. As regards the areas gifted by him to his sons or his wife to the extent that it is still in their possession, he accepted liability and stated that he was prepared to pay Agricultural Income‑tax on account of those lands. In my opinion, the stand taken by Sh. Manzur Elahi, correct and is in keeping with the provisions and spirit of the Act. The Collector had accepted the sales to be bona fide, not made with the intention of evading the tax and he should, therefore' have exempted Sh. Manzur Elahi from tax from the time that the sales to third parties not in any way connected with the family took place. I would accordingly accept both the revision petitions and direct that Agricultural Income‑tax should not be levied on account of the lands which Sh. Manzur Elahi or his sons or his wife have alienated to third parties from the dates of alienations as these alienations have been held by the collector to be bona fide transactions not made with the object of evading Agricultural Income‑tax. S. B. Appeal accepted.