1999 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Mian Muhammad Javed for Respondent,:(in I.T.A., No. 61744/LB of 1998). Mian Muhammad Javed for Appellant (in I.T:A. No. 1. , 746/LB of 199) Muhammad Asif; DA. for Respondent (in LT A. No. 1746/LB of 1998) Date, of hearing: 6th August, 1999 M. AFTAB AHMAD MALIK (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)-- These are cross appeals for the assessment year 1993'-94. The appellant has agitated that the learned, CIT(A) was not justified to reduce the addition instead he, ought to have directed deletion of the addition made under section 13(1)(d). On the other hand, the department has also agitated the reduction allowed. in the addition made by 'the Assessing Officer under section 13(1)(d) and deletion of addition made under section 30 at Rs.28,760. .

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of total income from house property at Rs.6,

000. As the appellant's income was below taxable limit the case was processed tinder normal law. A perusal of the assessment record revealed that the assessee purchased a property bearing No. 620-C, Block- 11, P. E. C. H. S., Karachi-for a lump sum consideration of Rs.500,

000. As per purchase deed this property consisted of 107 sq. yards of land with incomplete structure on the ground floor consisting of one shop, and one residential flat on the first floor. The assessee declared the .value of this property at Rs.771,240 in her wealth statement. The ;Assessing Officer confronted the assessee to adopt the valuation of this property at Rs.1,500,

000. Various explanations submitted by the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer. After Name elaborate discussion in the assessment order the value of this property was adopted 'at Rs.1,500.000. Therefore, the addition under section 130)(d), was made at Rs.728,

760. Income from other sources under section 30 was estimated at Rs.28,

760. Thus, total income for the year under appeal was estimated at Rs.773,

520. The appellant being aggrieved preferred' appeal before the CIT(A) who reduced the addition under section 13(t)(d) to ks.628,760 whereas the addition made under section 30 at Rs.28,760 was deleted.

3. Parties have been heard. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a photo copy of Tribunal's order passed in 1999 PTD (Trio.) 3234 whereby relying on Rule 207-A the addition made under section 13(1)(d) was deleted: The learned counsel has, submitted that the department has itself by introduction of Rule 207-A in the Income Tax Rules. accepted in principle that the valuation of immovable property should be adopted as per Collectors' tables. Learned counsel also submitted that the Assessing Officer rightly deleted the addition made under section 30 as the profit on sale of house was held to be capital and not income under section 30, Learned D.R.,, on the other hand, has supported the order of the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated therein.

4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and also have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. We find that as per the purchase deed the appellant purchased the abovementioned property for a consideration of Rs.500.000. It has been mentioned in the assessment order that as per purchase deed this property consisted of 107 sq. yards of land with incomplete structure on the ground floor consisting of one shop and one residential flat on the first floor. Later on the appellant spent Rs.225,000 on its completion before the sale of property for Rs.800,

000. In the case before us the Assessing Officer has not given any proper basis to determine the value of the property at Rs.1,500,

000. In the above unreported judgment it was stated that the department has itself by introduction of Rule 207-A in the Income Tax Rules, accepted in principle that the valuation of immovable property should be adopted as per collectors' tables. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the unreported judgment of the Tribunal cited above we direct that the addition made under section 13(1)(d) shall be deleted.

5. The department is in appeal against deletion of addition made at Rs:28,760 as income from other sources under section

30. The sale transaction of the property being a solitary transaction cannot be considered as venture in business. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly held that the profit on sale of house is held to be capital gain and not income under section

30. We, therefore, uphold the treatment meted out by the learned CIT(At.

6. As a result of the above discussion the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed while that filed by the department is dismissed being devoid of merits. C.M.A./M. A. K./83/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.