2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member and Raja Sikandar Khan, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member and Raja Sikandar Khan, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif, D.R., for Appellant.
- Ahmed Nauman Shaikh, ITP for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th December; 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑.Second Sched., Part 1, Cl. (7(ii))‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Assets were created from foreign remittance‑‑‑Claim of exemption by the legal heirs on the death of the owner of such assets‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Exemption was not an inherent right and law very clearly provides for exemption to the person who himself had "created:" the asset from foreign remittance‑‑ Exemption cl. 7(ii) of Part‑I of the Second Sched. of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had laid emphasis on the word "created" and assessee had not created the asset but inherited tire same ‑‑‑Property was not exempt in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑‑This appeal has been filed by the assessee. The solitary claim is that the assessee has inherited some movable assets in the shape of shares, which have been charged to tax by the Department in the hands of this assessee. The learned A.R. says with full vehemence that the assets having been created by the father of the assessee from foreign remittance were exempt in his hands and after his death in the hands of his legal heir, in this case his son i.e. this assessee. In his opinion the exemption was also an inherent right attached to said property and the same would fall on the heir automatically alongwith the said property. We respectfully disagree with the contention of learned A.R. The exemption is not an inherent right and the law very clearly provides for exemption to the person who himself has "created" the assets from foreign remittance. The exemption clause 7(ii) Part I of the Second Schedule of' the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 has laid emphasis on the word "created" and this assessee has not created the asset under discussion. He has inherited the same. As a result we without any hesitation hold that the property under discussion is not exempt and consider the order of ‑the two officers below to be as well within the legal framework. For the convenience of the concerned parties we reproduce here the relevant provision of law which provides exemptions:‑‑ "(ii) Created by an assessee out of remittance received in, or brought into Pakistan, through normal banking channels, during the period referred to in sub‑clause (i): Provided that where investment in the assets is not made entirely out of remittances received in, or brought into Pakistan through normal banking channels, the exemption shall apply in the same ratio as the foreign remittance bear to the total investment". Obviously the petitioner before us has not created this asset. He has inherited the same from his father who had created the said assets. The appeal is rejected. C.M.A./1068/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed