2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)

AMJAD ALI RANJHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).

These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of AAC, Appeal Range, Lahore relevant to assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in Wealth Tax Appeals Nos. 173 and 174, dated 30-4-1995.

2. Appellant's Grievances are summarized as under:-- (i) AAC was not justified in reducing the value of Property No.256-N, N S ..L .. to Rs.12,00,000 relevant to assessment year 1991-92 and 8.15,00,000 relevant to assessment year 1992-93. (ii) Value regarding jewellery after allowance of 10% catt is still high. Call notices were issued in response to which, Mr. Mehboob Alam. DR was present for the Revenue whereas none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, the appeals are decided on ex parte basis under rule 20(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.

4. Facts of the case are that value respecting Property No.159-N, N... S... L.... had been assessed at Rs.15,00,000 relevant to assessment year 1991-92 and to Rs.20,00,000 relevant to assessment year 1992-93 against declared at Rs.2,12,000 in each year which was enhanced to Rs.15,00,000 and Rs.20,00,000 by the Department whereas it has been reduced as given above to Rs.12,00,000 and Rs.15,00,000.

5. DR has been heard sand we have looked into the case. Property consists of 1-Kanal plot at S .... L.... hence, value reduced by the AAC does not call for any interference.

6. Assessee's appeals on both the accounts being devoid of merits stand rejected and disposed.

7. PER SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER).-- With due deference to the view held by my `learned brother sitting Accountant Member, would like to differ for the reason that merits of the case have not been discussed. As per record available with us, it is observed that for the assessment year 1990-91 value of the property in question was taken at Rs.8,00,000 while for the years under consideration the value of the property was adopted at Rs.15,00,000 and Rs.20,00,000 respectively which are almost double/more than double as compared to value taken in the immediately preceding year. To deviate from the history of the case, there should be some solid reasons which are not mentioned in this case. Even otherwise no property could fetch double value in the immediately subsequent year. Hence in my view when no plausible reason for enhancing the value of the property is available, history could be taken as best guide while valuing the same. Hence in my view and as per history of the case, the value for these years should have been adopted at Rs.9,00,000 and Rs.10,00,000 respectively.

8. Since difference of opinion has arisen between the two Members the Honurable Chairman is requested to mark the case to a third Member to adjudicate the following question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was justified to maintain the impugned order when the learned First Appellate Authority had failed to decide the case in view of the history of the case and no plausible reason was given for huge estimations."

9. PER MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).

I agree with the view of the learned Judicial Member that the history of the case cannot be deviated in the absence of any solid reasons. Since the value of the property in question was assessed at Rs.8 lacs in 1990-91, so the value determined for the year 1991-92 at Rs.12 lacs and in the year 1992-93 at Rs.15 lacs by the learned AAC is still excessive and contrary to the history. The learned Judicial Member is, therefore, justified to propose the value of the property at Rs.9 lacs in the year 1991-92 and at Rs.10 lacs in the year 1992-93. It would, therefore, meet the ends of justice if the WTO is directed to adopt the value of the said property at Rs.9 lacs and Rs.10 lacs respectively for the years under consideration. C.M.A./592/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.