2006 PLP 2411 (PTD)

This order shall deal with and decide the following appeals involving the identical controversy and being between the same parties:-- W.T.A. No.46 of 2002, W.T.A. No. 47 of 2002, W.T.A. No.48 of 2002, W.T.A. No. 49 of 2002, W.T.A. No. 50 of 2002 and W.T.A. No. 51 of 2002.

2. Rahbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited; and assessee owning two plots measuring 7 Kanals, 12 Marlas in Shadman, Lahore declared value thereof at Rs.1,05,76,095 for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 and at Rs.10,610,471 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Assessing Officer however completing assessment under section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 valued the plots on D.C. rates at Rs.3,85,00,000 for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 and at Rs.1,95,00,000 for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1995-96. The assesse's objection that the said assets being outside the scope of section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 were assessable at bulk value under Rule 8(9) of the Wealth Tax Rules, was over-ruled. The respondent-assessee's appeals thereagainst were dismissed. Second appeals were filed by the assessee before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Lahore. These appeals were accepted by the learned Tribunal through order, dated 30-7-2001. Hence the present appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-II, Lahore.

3. Though no questions of law had been framed in the present appeals for consideration of this Court yet the grounds as pleaded in para. 4 thereof were examined. This Court on due and proper consideration of the said grounds does not find that any question of law arises therefrom for question of this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assets held by the assessee fell within section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as the same were held by the company for the purpose of consideration and sale or letting out and it was emphasized by him that the said purpose having not been considered by the learned Tribunal gave rise to a question of law for an answer from this Court.

5. We cannot subscribe to the submissions of the learned counsel for the revenue as the learned Tribunal essentially held that the Department was unable to' prove through record or evidence that the assessee-company held the said vacant plots for the business of construction and sale". Further that in the absence of' production of record thereto, the learned Tribunal firmly observed that the vacant plots owned by the assessee did not fall within the mischief provisions of section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.

6. It obviously is a question of fact as to whether an asset was held by an assessee with object to construct and sale or not; the proof of which depends upon a factual inquiry and available evidence. The appeals thus do not involve any question of law to be considered and answered from this Court.

7. These appeals are thus dismissed. H.B.T./C-23/L Appeal dismissed.