2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)

ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM (JUDICIAL MEMBER).

By the instant miscellaneous application, the Revenue seeks rectification of I.T.A.T. order, dated 9-4;2001 pertaining to W.T.A. No. 736/LB of 1995, which was passed ex parte against the assessee while disposing of appeal filed at the instance of the revenue, whereas the assessee prays for constitution of a Larger Bench to review the matter.

2. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the Assessing Officer assessed the value of the cold storage at Rs. 64,00,000 Rs. 40,000 per Marla. Against the treatment meted out by the Assessing p Authority, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority, where the A.A.C. allowed considerable relief to the assessee by reducing the estimated value to Rs. 20,000 per Marla. Against the said relief the. Revenue preferred appeal before the I.T.A.T., which was accepted by restricting the valuation at Rs. 30,000 per Marla.

3. The learned A.R. contests the ex parte order and pleads that the learned I.T.A.T. was fully conversant regarding order, dated 19-3-1998 pertaining to M.A. No. 280/LB of 1997 recorded by Larger Bench of I.T.A.T., and erred to accept the departmental appeal pertaining to W.T.A. No. 736/LB of 1995 and wrongly restricted the valuation of the subject property at Rs. 30,000 per Marla. The learned A.R. has emphasized that since the Larger Bench has fixed the valuation of the subject property at Rs. 7,000 per Marla vide its order supra. Thus, the mistake regarding valuation of the property is apparent and patent. In support of his arguments, he has also relied upon a Full Bench reported case as 1997 PTD (Trib.) 879 and stressed that the rationale laid down by the Larger Bench will prevail upon the Division Bench. While concluding his arguments he prays for constitution of a Large; Bench for rectification of the I.T.A.T. order, dated 9-4-2001.

4. On the contrary, the D.R, also confines his arguments to the facts and reasons as elaborated in the Rectification Application and prays to remove the contradiction as emerging from the decision of Larger Bench, dated 19-3-1998 and Division Bench of I.T.A.T dated 24-10-1996.

5. Arguments advanced by both representatives have been heard and relevant record perused. It is an admitted fact that neither the assessee nor his A.R. was present 'at the time of passing the impugned order, dated 9-4-2001 and no proper assistance was provided that a Larger Bench of I.T.A.T. had already fixed the valuation of the subject property at Rs. 7,000 per Marla. Thus, we are also in agreement with the arguments of A.R that the order of Larger Bench is to be prevailed upon A the Division Bench in case of difference of opinion. So, persuaded by the line of arguments adopted by the learned A.R., we modify our earlier order, dated 9-4-2001 and restrict the valuation of property in question at Rs. 7,000 per Marla by following the decision of Larger Bench cited above. The request of the A.R. for constitution of Larger Bench cannot be acceded to because main thrust of both parties was of rectification of the impugned order, which has been made. Both applications filed by the assessee as well as Department succeed. C.M.A./M.A.K./170/Tax(Trib.)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application accepted.