2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)

In this connection, the AR of the assessee has relied on 1996 SCMR 230, the relevant portion is as under: "The principles for remand of case are no longer unsettled. The primary rule is that where there is adequate evidence on record to decide the case itself, the Court is not under an obligation to make order of remand." 2002 PTD 407, the relevant portion is as under: "In doing so we were considering the prospects of a remand, however, we feel that the same would not be proper since in framing the assessment orders it is the Assessing Officer who has to blame himself for the wrongful exercise of power. A remand order would have been subjected to another round of cumbersome proceedings which is deprecated in law and such order should not be passed in a routine manner to allow a party to improve his case or to fill in the lacuna‑(see Muhammad Sadiq v. ITO, 1988 .PTD 1014 and Chairman, WAPDA v. Gulbat Khan 1996 SCMR 230)." 1988 PTD 1014, the relevant portion is as under:‑‑‑ "The power to remand is discretionary in nature. But such discretion is to be exercised reasonably and fairly indicating the reasons for remand. The impugned order does not satisfy this test. Upon the facts obtaining in the record, there was no valid ground to send back the case to the Income Tax Officer for fresh assessment. The direction given by the Tribunal in this respect is wholly illegal and most likely shall. expose the petitioner to another round of cumbersome proceedings and unnecessary harassment. Such a direction is liable to be struck down in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court." 2001 PTD (Trib.) 22, the relevant portion is as under:‑‑‑ "Notification No. S.R.O. 534(1)/94, dated June 9, 1994 providing that the learned DCWT shall not without the prior approval of I.A.C. estimate the gross annual rental value at a sum higher than the rent paid or payable by the tenant Mr. Salman Pasha, therefore, submits that for and from assessment year 1992‑93 the law requires the Assessing Officer to estimate the G.A.R.V. at a 'sum that is actually paid or is payable by the tenant during the year to the assessee unless he chooses to estimate it at a higher sum with prior approval of the I.A.C. In the instant case, Mr. Salman Pasha submits that no such approval has been obtained." "On the foregoing facts, we find that the impugned orders of the learned CWT(A) are not sustainable in law.; hence vacated and the assessment orders set aside with the directions to accept the declared G.A.R.V. and assess the value of properties accordingly." ' W.T.As. Nos.366 to 369, 1565 to 156'7/LB/99 assessment years 1994‑95 to 1997‑98, dated 8‑2‑2000 in which I the author of this judgment, is also the author of that judgment and I am also bound by it. The relevant portion is reproduced below: "The contention of the learned AR for the assessee that prior approval of the IAC is mandatory before estimating the higher rent than actually received from the tenant is also correct. The Assessing Officer having increased the rent without obtaining the prior approval of the IAC as required under Rule 8(3), the learned AAC was not justified to remand the case back. In the circumstances the ratio settled by the aforesaid reported and unreported case are fully attracted and the setting aside of the assessment amounts to fill in the lacuna on the part of the Assessing Officer." The AR has proved beyond any shadow of doubt. that the appeals should have been accepted. DR has not been able to controvert the same. Keeping all these facts in view the orders of the authorities below are vacated and the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the declared value in all the three years under review. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. C.M.A./M.A.K./454/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.