2006 PLP 72 (PTD)

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.

This appeal under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 claims that following questions of law have arisen out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore dated 17-4-1999:

"(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that valuation under rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 in respect of 16 Kanals and 6 Marlas land owned by the appellant and leased out against fixed rentals to the Company, Messrs Ihsan Yousaf Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad, which owns the buildings constructed by it over the said land, should be made by applying sale rates prescribed by the District Collector for the purpose of levy of the stamp duty on sale of open plots of land instead of the Gross Annual Rental Value basis which was followed consistently in the appellant's Wealth Tax Assessment of all the preceding years upto 1993-94? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the assessment for further probe of the appellant's investment in the purchase of shares of Rs.3,99,75,000 in Messrs Ehsan Fabrics Ltd. to be out of the foreign remittance of US dollars equivalent to Rs.4,02,20,700? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Wealth Tax Department after having accepted as genuine the receipt by the appellant of the aforesaid foreign remittance of US dollars through normal banking channels, is empowered to refuse exemption claimed under clause (7)(ii) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, on account of the aforesaid investment in the purchase of shares of the company? (iv) Whether in view of the provisions of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 the tax authorities are barred from making any probe or inquiry regarding the admitted receipt by the appellant of the foreign remittance of US dollars through normal banking channels and any investment claimed out of such foreign remittance?"

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we will agree that the assessment framed in this case having partly been set aside, no question of law to that extent can possibly be said to have arisen out of the impugned order of the Tribunal.

3. The proposed questions Nos. (ii) to (iv) as reproduced above clearly indicate that the assessee wishes to have our opinion on the merits of the case while these were directed to be re-considered by the Revenue. It is by now well-settled that ordinarily a remand order does not give rise to a question of law to be considered by this Court in its referable jurisdiction.

4. As far question No.(i) is concerned, we are of the view that the assessee was treated fairly by the Tribunal when they directed the Assessing Officer that in absence of D.C. rates he should apply rates of residential land to the industrial plot owned by the appellant. Although we have disapproved the valuation of properties on the basis of cost of B construction and rates of land notified by the Local District Collectors for the purpose of charge of stamp duty yet the case in hand appears to be a different one where it is only an industrial plot without any construction made thereupon. The remand of this issue therefore also does not give rise to a question of law.

5. Appeal disposed of. S.A.K./M-1329/L Appeal disposed of.