ORDER These are six miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee to implead an additional ground which is as follows:- "That the separate valuations of cost of construction and land for the purpose of assigning value to the constructed properties at truck stand, Brandreth Road and Railway Road, are illegal and beyond the valuation rules as provided under the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963."
2. it has further been contended that the above- said additional ground of appeal does not need verification of facts and is pure legal which goes to the very root of assumption of jurisdiction to value a constructed property, it has, therefore, been prayed that permission may please be allowed to raise and argue the above additional ground as well.
3. The DR was also given a copy of the above additional ground. The DR has candidly conceded that this is a pure legal ground and as per ruling of this Tribunal, the petitioners may be permitted to argue on this ground also.
4. For the charge years 1993-94 to 1998-99 the assessee is in appeal on the ground that the officer below have no lawful justification in rejecting the claimed exemption of business place situate at Truck Stand, Ravi Road, Lahore.
5. That partial relief allowed by way of reducing the cost of construction from Rs. 250/- per sq. Ft. To Rs. 175/- per.sq. Ft. Is still inadequate.
6. That there was no lawful justification in confirming the valuation of property situate at 60 Brandreth Road, Lahore.
7. That without prejudice to the above the reduction of cost of construction from Rs. 250/- to Rs.
175/- per sq. Ft. Is still inadequate.
8. That confirmation of impugned valuation of property situate at 72-Railway Road, Lahore is without lawful authority.
9. That the first appellate authority has failed to pass a speaking order incorporating therein all the grounds raised before her inasmuch as no finding has been given in respect of additional tax charged at Rs. 177,213/-.
10. For the charge years 1997-98 and 1998-99 there are two ground which are in excess of the grounds in the other appeals; one is that the first appellate authority has no lawful justification to confirm the valuation of gifted out property situate at Truck Stand, Ravi Road, Lahore in the hands of the appellant who did not own or possess the said property for the years under appeal. The gift was made through properly executed Gift Deed has been unlawfully rejected by both the officers below. The same ground is for the property at 72 Ravi Road, Lahore, it has been contended that the property should have been excluded from appellant's net wealth.
11. The Revenue is also in cross appeals for all the six charge years on the following ground:-- "That the CIT (A) was justified to reduce the construction rates of Property No. 60 Brandreth Road and Truck Stand Ravi Road and delete the value of toyota Corolla Car without any solid reason." %12. The grounds of appeal framed by the Revenue are against the ITAT Rules. The valuation of each property should have been distinctly challenged before the Tribunal which has not been done in this case. Therefore, they are dismissed in limine.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The additional ground in which the permission is sought to be impleaded is allowed and on it arguments have also been heard.
13. We agree with the arguments of AR that as per law, Constructed property, cannot be evaluated with separate value of cost of construction and land, it is a settled issue now. it is to be valued as per rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules..
After hearing the arguments on this ground, it is ordered that all the assessments made below are set aside for all the properties in dispute and the Assessing Officer is directed to make assessm ents de novo keeping in view the up to date law and wealth tax rules specifically ignoring the Circular No. 9 of 1994, dated 10.7.1994 which circular has been struck down by the ITAT as far back as in 1995.
14. On the issue of exemption of business place situate at 60 Brandreth Road, Lahore the AR of the assessee has found support from 1992 SCMR.2352 and 1999 80 Tax 38 Trib. School on three floor constructed property on an area of 664 4q. Yds. And it has also been contended that the area of the assessee's shop is 23 M. in 1992 SCMR 60 a majority decision that godown is not a shop (perhaps being not a sale point). We would like to rest upon the litigation pending in the Lahore High court, Lahore against our Full Bench decision in which the definition of shop is sub judice. As far as the judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned, it is under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
As far as the other judgment of the Tribunal is concerned, it is a Division Bench judgment. Therefore, it will be safe to set aside on this issue for de novo decision in view of the pending sub judice matter before the Lahore High Court, Lahore against Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in order to see the scope of the shop in the Income Tax Ordinance. The Assessing Officer is directed to keep this issue pending till the judgment of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore is announced on the issue of shop and consequent to it the exemptions allowed therein. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide this issue within the shortest possible time after the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore about the definition of a "shop".
15. As far as the issue of gift is concerned, the assessment is ex parte. The CWT (A) has written that they have produced the gift deed alongwith the applications in the Excise Department. Now it has been vehemently contended by the AR of the assessee that copy of the gift deed was duly provided to the Wealth Tax Officer but he has simply ignored it and has contended that it is not a registered P.C. T.L.R. Document. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the matter in view of the judgments of the superior Courts under the Mohammedan Law as far as gift is concerned. This will also be clarified in the de novo assessments that the property in dispute vis-a-vis gift is concerned has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee or not.
16. As far as the additional tax is concerned, as the assessments have already been set aside in toto and there remains no assessm ent in field, consequently, the additional tax levied on it stood annulled
17. The appeals filed by the assessee/Revenue are decided in the above said terms.