1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Date of hearing: 6th February, 1996 CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER). --This appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1987-88 has been preferred at the instance of the assessee. It calls in question the order dated 31-7-1986 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Lahore. It is agitated on behalf of the appellant/assessee that the estimate of Gross A.L.V. is not only unjustified but also illegal. It is further submitted that the A.L.V. estimate at Rs.2;64,000 is excessive and arbitrary. The learned A.R. sustains that complete list of tenants was furnished the I.T.O., but the same was not considered. It is further submitted that proper accounts, of property in question are maintained. Rent Receipts are issued to each and every tenant I and the entire income is deposited in the bank. The record was duly produced but the estimate of Gross A.L.V. was arrived at without examining the same. Before us, the learned A.R. has argued that the appellant is one of the four partners. He is the only one whose declared income is not accepted by the Department, although the income of the other three partners is being accepted. It is further submitted that in the subsequent three years, the learned C.I.T. (A) has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2. It is noticed that the property is located in Anarkali Bazar and has a great commercial attraction. On account of this, the Assessing Officer arrived at the impugned estimate, which was confirmed in appeal.

3. To a question, the learned A.R. explained that the Inquiry Report by the I.T.O. is baseless. He incorporated the names of some of the so-called tenants who do not exist at site. It is stated that no reason for estimating the A.L.V. as above figures, has been brought on the record.

4. We have considered the respective arguments oaf the parties and examined the record. It is noticed that the I.T.O., placed reliance on the I.T.O' s. report and the learned First Appellate Authority confirmed the estimate without resorting to the examination and the, application of law on the point. The law already states that the A.L.V., *can be determined only where the property is not leased out or else the correct information regarding the tenant is not provided. In this case, however, not only the list of the tenants was provided but the rent received from them is also specifically stated for which a full record is maintained. Obviously, without considering these aspects of the case, the estimate of A.L.V. arrived at by the Assessing officer and confirmed in appeal by the C.I.T. (Appeals) cannot be supported. It is further noticed that if the I.T.O., has any doubts regarding the correct disclosure as to the rent received from the various tenants, it was open for him to call for anyone of them to ascertain the correct rental payment. Unfortunately, this was not done. We, therefore, are not inclined to uphold the impugned order. The Assessing Officer shall examine the case afresh to determine the tax liability of the appellant keeping in view the declared A.L.V.-for the year under review.

5. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. C.M.S./309/Trib. Appeal allowed.