1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

AHSAN ALAM (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).

These are four appeals, two filed on behalf of the assessee and two by the department challenging the order of the learned A.A.C. Range-III, Faisalabad, dated 19-9-1991 pertaining to the Assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The assessee-appellant owns property as follows:-- (1) 1/4th share in P-2087 Mai-Di-Jhuggi, Faisalabad. (2) 1/5th share in P-524, Sammundri. (3) 1/5th share in 12 Marlas Plot at Chak No. 122/RB (4) 1/5th share in land of M/s. Chand Oil & General Mills, Sheikhupura Road, Faisalabad. (5) 1/5th share in 4 Marlas Plot at Chak No. 122/RB, Faisalabad. (6) 1/5th share in 7 Marlas Plot at Chak No.207/RB, Faisalabad (7) 1/5th share in 18 Marlas Plot at Burewala. (8) 1/5th share in 5 Marlas Plot at Dijkot. (9) 1/5th share in 13 Marlas Plot at Chak No.212/RB, Faisalabad.

2. Mr. Shahid Abbas, Advocate, A.R. of the assessee-appellant is present and nemo for the department at the time of hearing of the present appeals. Therefore, we opt to proceed ex parte against the respondent department and decide the appeals on merit by resort to Rule 20(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.

3. The facts in brief are that the assessees-appellant owns property a~ narrated above in para. No. l of the present order to the extent of the share it each plot as shown in the assessment order and has come in appeal agitating that the learned A.A.C. Range-III, Faisalabad has wrongly set aside the case for the properties i.e. 1/2 share in P-2087, 1/5th share in P-524 and 1/5th share in 12,Marlas plot and also challenging that the authorities below did not consider the actual nature, area and size of the plots and valuation o! properties given hereunder have been confirmed by the A.A.C. without any basis:-- (1) 1/5th share in land of M/s Chand Oil & General Mills. Sheikhupura Road, Faisalabad. (2) 1 /5th share in 4 Marlas Plot at Chak No. 122513, Faisalabad. (3) 1/5th share in 7 Marlas Plot at Chak No.207/RB, Faisalabad (4) 1 /5th share in 18 Marlas Plot at Burewala. (5) 1/5th share in 5 Marlas Plot at Dijkot. (6) 1/5th share in 13 Marlas Plot at Chak No.212/RB, Faisalabad. It is further agitated by the A.R. of the appellant-assessee that Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, has not been considered in its true perspective and that the valuation was adopted at a very high figure. It is also contended that that confirmation of the value of such properties is also illegal and without any solid reasons knowing the facts of the case. Further contended that the order of A.A.C. itself was contradictory.

4. We have perused the relevant record at considerable extent. Whip examining the case file, it revealed that the W.T.O. applied the rule of thumb end determined the valuation of the properties bearing 1/4th share in A P-2087 Mai-di-Jhuggi, Faisalabad, 1/5th share in P-524, Summundri and 1/5th share in 12 Marlas Plot at Chak No. 122/RB, Faisalabad, Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules is a guiding factor. According to law annual value could be increased at 10% and in this connection the assessing officer, first of all was required to determine the rental value of the properties. Moreover, the assessing officer should have sought inspiration from the valuation made by the Excise and Taxation Department which was the proper and adequate. A method of valuing the property Method adopted by the W.T.O. in adopting the valuation of the properties is not at all scientific and backed by any provisions of law. It has also revealed that both the authorities below did not take into consideration the past history of the case and the learned Wealth Tax Officer should have kept in mind the rules, but it seems that harsh treatment has been given by him. It will be more appropriate to reproduce the valuation of the properties adopted in the past assessment years, by the Wealth Tax Officer and that the treatment given any the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) for analysis and to arrive at just and right conclusion:

Valuation by I.T.O Appeal PAST HISTORY UNDER 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1896-87 1987-88 1988-89 1/4TH H/N 2087 (6.68.000) (3.50.000) (3.85.000) (4.25.000) (5.00.000) (5.50.000) (6.06.000) 87-500 96.250 1.06.250 1.25.000 1.37.500 1.51.500 1.67.00 1/5TH LAND (207) RB (53.70.000) (31.45.000) (33.26.250) (35.48.000) (39.91.500) (44.25.000) (48.80.000) 6.20.000 6.65.250 7.09.600 7.98.300 8.87.000 8.76.000 10.74.000 1/5TH P-524 (4.85.000) (2.50.000) (2.75.000) (3.10.000) (3.45.000) (4.00.000) (4.40.000) 50.000 55.000 62.000 69.000 80.000 88.000 97.000 1/5TH 207(RB)7(M) (36.000) (63.000) (70.000) (77.000) (84.000) (94.000) (1.05.000) 3-3/5(S) 11.200 12.600 14.000 15.400 16.800 18.800 21.000 1/5TH 18(M) (1.10.000) (54.000) (63.000) (72.000) (81.000) (90.000) (1.00.000) 10.800 12.600 14.400 16.200 18.000 20.000 22.000 1/5TH DIJKOT PLOT(S) (15.000) (17.500) (20.000) (22.500) (25.000) (27.500) (30.000) 3.000 4.000 4.500 4.500 5.000 5.500 6.000 1/5TH 13(M) 212RB (6.32.500) -- -- -- -- (5.20.000) (5.72.500) 1.04.000 1.14.500 1.26.500 1/5TH 19-K-11(M) (10.20.000) -- -- -- -- (8.40.000) (9.25.000) 1.68.000 1.85.000 2.04.000 1/5TH-122/JB 3(M) (20.000) (22.000) (24.000) (26.000) (28.000) (32.000) (37.500) 10(S) 4.000 4.400 4.800 5.200 5.600 6.500 7.500 1/4TH SHARE (2087) (1.00.000) (1.10.000) (1.20.000) (1.40.000) (1.60.000) set aside set aside 25.000 27.500 30.000 45.000 40.000 1/5TH LAND RB (207) (20.11.500) (21.23.250) (22.35.000) (25.70.000) (27.93.000) confirmed 4.02.300 4.04.650 4.47.000 5.14.050 5.58.750 1/5th in P-524 (1.50.000) (1.60.000) (1.70.000) (1.90.000) (2.91.000) Set aside Set aside 30.000 33.000 34.000 38.000 42.000 1/5th 7(M) 3-3 CONFIRMED (31.500) (33.250) (35.000) (40.250) (43.750) Confirmed 5(S)RB 207C 6.300 6.650 7.000 8.050 8.750 1/5TH 18(M) plot confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed Confirmed 1/5TH plot DIJKOT confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed Confirmed 1/5TH 13(M) RB-212 confirmed -- -- -- -- (1.95.000) Confirmed 39.000 1/5th 19(K) 11(M) Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Chak No.24 JB-122 Agri.Land Agri.Land Agri.Land Agri.Land Agri.Land Agri.Land Agri.Land 1/5th 3(M) 10(S) Confirmed -do- -do- -do- -do- Confirmed Confirmed JB 122

5. A perusal of the above valuation adopted by the W.T.O and the treatment given by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) indicates that there was no application of proper Wealth Tax Rules and highhandedness, seems to be shown in adopting the valuation. However, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) had given thoughtful consideration in reducing the valuation adopting by the W.T.O.

6. Leered A.R. of the assessee has drawn our attention that in the 1, the valuation fixed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) in the previous assessment its i.e. 1982-83 to 1986-87 was confirmed by the learned Members in a Division Bench vide their order/decision dated 18-1-1995 in I.T.As.Nos.172 to 176/LB/I-1988-89, thus Mr. Shahid Abbas, the learned A.R. of the assessee strongly opposing the impugned order of the department, untended that the W.T.O. was not justified in adopting the valuation too high in the light of the decision of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in the previous assessment years.

7. While perusing the Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules and appreciating the arguments advanced and put forth also the decision of the learned I.T.A.T in this case, we deem it appropriate and to meet the ends of justice to have the valuation of the properties fixed by comparing with the immediate preceding year's valuation. The valuation should strictly be in line with the I.T.A.T's.0 decision for the previous assessment years. There must not be unreasonable jump while calculating the valuation which may mark the spirit of the previous order of the Tribunal. The valuation is to be kept at a level and in accordance with the natural and legal increase year after year. The appeals are, therefore, set aside keeping in view the above directions which have been reached at after proper discussion in the body of the order.

8. The W.T.O. is directed to calculate the share of the assessee after the adequate and reasonable adoption of the valuation of each property in line with the past history of the case. The appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are disposed of accordingly.

9. So far as the appeals filed at the instance of the department, it is revealed that these have been filed as a matter of course. Under the Rules of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, the appellant, either the assessee or the department should have filed certified copy of the first appellate authority's order, Rule 11 is very clear on this point. The A.R. of the assessee also filed photocopy of the Tribunal's decision on this issue. Taking into consideration the rules of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, appeals filed at the instance of the department, being devoid of force and properly documented carry only one ground of appeal, for which the opportunity of being properly heard is to be given. l

0. All the four appeals are disposed of, accordingly. M.B. A./190/T Order accordingly