2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Accountant Member Judicial Member As Per. Mr. Amjad Ali Ranjha Accountant Member. I beg to differ with my learned brother (Judicial Member) regarding rejection of departmental appeal for the following reasons:‑‑ I am sorry to say that my learned brother has completely ignored some very important aspects of the case based on facts, as are discussed below:‑‑ (i) I am of the considered view that facts of case should never' be ignored while relying on the judgments of superior authorities. Facts of this case are that the assessee had purchased 7‑Kanals & 8‑Marlas of land at Ferozepur Road, Lahore at the average rate of Rs.20,270 per Kanal and 26 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land for registered value of Rs.5,35,000 at the average rate of Rs.19,225 per Kanal at 7 KM. Ferozepur Road, Lahore on the left flank of Rohi Nala. Department has cited a parallel case with its NT No. 7‑2‑1716356 of Messrs Dynasty Textile and Dyeing Mills Ltd. which is situated at 6‑KM Ferozepur Road, Lahore at right flank of Rohi Nala measuring 24'‑Kanals of land on 18‑9‑1991 yielding per Kanal rate at Rs.74,916 including registration charges. Now, the assessee under consideration has purchased these lands almost after three or four years after the case cited by the department. Naturally, it would be more developed area for industrial purposes after three/four years as far as the issue of basic infrastructure like metalled road, electricity, disposal and drains and other facilities are concerned. Hence, there is no doubt that the value declared by the assessee at Rs.20,270 per Kanal for the assessment year 1993‑94 and at Rs.19,225 per Kanal relevant to assessment year 1994‑95 is ridiculously low. Hence, I am in favour of confirming the departmental order and accepting the departmental appeal, whereas my learned brother is completely ignoring this important fact of the case and is accepting the ridiculously low value without any valid reasons. (Sd.) (Amjad Ali Ranjha) Accountant Member As the difference of opinion has arisen between the members of this Bench, hence the case is referred to the Hon'ble Chairman for nomination of a third member to resolve the following question:‑‑ Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, departmental appeals need to be accepted or dismissed? (Sd.) (Sd.) (Khawaja Farooq Saeed) (Amjad Ali Ranjha) Judicial‑Member Accountant Member MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).‑-- The title income tax appeals pertaining to the assessment years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95 have been referred to me by the worthy Chairman for resolving the difference of opinion which arose between the learned Judicial Member and the learned Accountant Member on the issue whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case departmental appeals need to be accepted or dismissed? The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are against the deletion of addition under section 13(1)(d) made by the learned First Appellate Authority. The assessee purchased 7 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land at Ferozepur Road, Lahore at average rate of Rs.20,270 per Kanal and 26 Kanals 17 Marlas land for registered value of Rs.535,000 at the average rate of Rs.19,225 per Kanal at 7 KM Ferozepur Road, Lahore. In view of parallel case the declared rate was rejected and additions under section 13(1)(d) were made which were deleted by the learned First Appellate Authority vide order, dated 17‑6‑1997. The department came up in appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) before this Tribunal. My learned brother, the learned Judicial Member vide reasons stated (supra) maintained the order passed by the learned CIT(A) while the learned Accountant Member recorded his disapproval against maintenance of the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted the same arguments which were taken at the time of hearing of appeal and recorded by the learned Judicial Member. The learned DR, on the other hand, has supported the order of the learned CIT(A) for the reasons stated therein. After hearing both the sides and going through the findings recorded by my learned brothers, the learned Judicial Member and Accountant Member and of the considered view that the learned Judicial Member was justified to reject the departmental appeals in view of the prescribed procedure laid down for addition under section

13. The parallel case was not or all fours on the facts and circumstances of the case and was not of any help in disregarding the instructions of Legislature in terms of Rule 207A. Under these circumstances concur with the view point recorded by my brother the learned Judicial Member and the departmental appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit as per majority view. C.M.A./54/Tax (Trib) Appeals dismissed.