2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh, Judicial Member and Imtiaz Anjum, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh, Judicial Member and Imtiaz Anjum, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javed‑ur‑Rehman, D.R. for Appellant.
- Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 2002.
- 2. We have heard Mr. Japed‑ur‑Rehman, learned representative for the department and Mian Ashiq Hussain, learned authorized representative for the assessee/respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 62 & 132‑‑‑Additional assessment ‑‑‑‑Aslah/property disposed of during the year not shown in the wealth statement‑‑‑Same facts and change of opinion‑‑‑Re‑opening of assessment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Case could not be reopened/re‑appraised on same facts and as a result of change of opinion‑‑‑No information had been received by the Assessing Officer justifying the reopening of the assessment as warranted by law‑‑ Evidence regarding disposal of Aslah was correct and the appellant was right that the Aslah was disposed of within the assessment year and hence he was correct by not showing the same in wealth statement‑‑‑No addition on this plea could be evolved‑‑‑Assessment order framed under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was annulled being illegal by the Appellate Tribunal and assessment order passed under Ss.62/132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was restored. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑Ss. 65, 59(1) & 13‑‑‑Additional assessment‑‑‑Reopening of assessment in the absence of wealth statement and wealth tax return and material evidence of concealment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Wealth statements and wealth tax returns were not available on record and in absence of wealth statement, wealth tax returns and any confession by the assessee prior to reopening of the assessment the Department had no definite material evidence required to reopen the assessment so as to make a case for concealment‑‑‑Department should have possessed definite material evidence and information but the Department had failed to establish concealment as neither the wealth statement was filed by the assessee and until and unless there was record available in the shape of wealth statement/wealth tax return or admission by the assessee regarding his assets at the end of the assessment years how it could be held that there was concealment on simple complaint and direction of any Income‑tax Authority‑‑‑Provisions of Ss.65 & 13 of .the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not attracted at all and a case of concealment could not be made and legally held valid in the eyes of law‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had no legally valid case of concealment, thus, the assessments reopened under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were irregular, unfounded and unlawful‑‑‑Assessment orders framed under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were annulled being illegal and original assessment orders passed under S.59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were restored. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 65‑‑‑Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.207‑A-‑‑Additional assessment‑‑ Exchange of property‑‑‑Re‑opening of assessment on the point of valuation‑‑‑Transactions in acquisition were mostly due to exchange of assets which were registered as per District Collector rates‑‑‑Action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could not be taken in view of R.207‑A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 and lack of definite information as undisclosed/assessed income was not diverted to the acquisition of such plots/assets.
Judgment & Decree
(b) proceedings initiated for purchase of Aslah were dropped as the same weapon had been sold before the close of the accounting period; (c) there' was no concealment of the properties mostly acquired in exchange except mistake of its, description for the assessment year 1992‑93 which was " explained in detail, therefore, it could not have been made the basis for reopening of the case; (d) assessments for the years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95 admittedly were framed under section 59(1); (e) it is a basic principle that valuation is not the subject of taxation because it is income for the investment/expenditure in acquisition of asset which can be taxed. On the basis of above summarized objections/contentions the AR has emphasized that AAC has exhaustively examined the pros and cons and facts of the case have been fully supported by the case law relied upon. Learned AR has re‑emphasized on appraisal of the facts of exchange pointing out the mistakes as also highlighted by the AAC on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the appellate order and case‑law cited at bar 1990 PTD 115 (SC Pak., 1990 PTD 338, 1989 PTD 141 (Kar. H.C.) and 1995 PTD (Trib.) 580 rightly arrived at the conclusion that jurisdiction under section 65 was not lawfully assumed for all the impugned assessment years. As a result assessment under section 65 for the assessment year 1992‑93 was annulled while order under sections 62/132 for the years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95 framed under section 59(1) restored.
7. We have given a careful consideration to the facts of the case as placed before us in the absence of assessment records and contentions of both the parties. Admitted facts are that assessment for the year 1992‑93 was framed under section 62 after detailed proceedings income was assessed at Rs.170,654 vide order dated 29‑5‑1999. Copies of the wealth statement as on 30‑6‑1991 and reconciliation thereof shows the following properties:‑‑ A. Non‑Agricultural Property: (i) Plot 1 Kanal, 19 Marlas of cost Mohallah Eidgah, Pakpattan. Rs.2,22,000 Plot 5 Marla Mahallah Rs.17,000 Chiragh Shah, Pakpattan Plot 1 Kanal Mauza Rs.55,000 B. Agricultural Property: (i) 50% share in land 7 Kanals, Rs.41,000 19 Marlas, Mauza 33/SP. (ii) 45 Kanals 12 Marlas Chak inherited No.33/SP, Pakpattan. Wealth statement as on 30‑6‑1992 filed at the time of original assessment indicates the addition of two plots as under:‑‑ (i) 5 Marlas for Rs.17,000. (ii) 4 Marlas for Rs.14,
000. The position of assets for the assessment years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95 showed exchange of 24 Kanals of inherited land for 72 Kanals 16 Marlas undeveloped land against inherited land of 45 Kanals 12 Marlas duly exhibited as on 30‑6‑1991 then exchange of 5 Marlas of urban plot for 2 Kanals rurual land alongwith exchange of 2 Kanals inherited land for 18 Kanals undeveloped ,land etc. while acquisition of only one property as per agreement in the name of assessee's brother Muhammad Latif pertained to assessment year 1994‑95.
8. In view of the facts briefly stated above we are of the opinion that transactions in acquisition were mostly due exchange of assets as on 30‑6‑1992 which were registered etc. as per D.C. rates. Action under section 65, therefore, could not be taken in view of Rule 207A and lack of definite information as undisclosed/assessed income was not diverted to the acquisition of these plots etc. The matter of acquisition of revolver was dropped by the Assessing Officer himself at the time of assessment it, therefore, could not be made the basis.
9. Having considered the contentions of the assessee we are of the considered view that assessing authority assumed jurisdiction under section 65 for all the impugned years unlawfully. The assessments framed in the facts as well as case‑law on the subject were rightly adjudicated upon by the AAC. We, therefore, uphold the treatment by the AAC Departmental appeals, for all the years under consideration, being devoid of merit are dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./457/Tax (Trib.) Appeals‑dismissed.