Through the captioned appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee/appellant has called in question the impugned order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income/Wealth Tax (Appeals), Zone-V, Lahore. The contention of the assessee is that the learned first appellate authority was not justified to remand the case to the DCWT after coming to the conclusion that the treatment meted out to the assessee was harsh and capricious for the reason that the valuation of the assessee's property has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules which clearly stipulates that the valuation should be made on the basis of GALV of the property. Similarly, the assessee has also assailed the impugned order that it was matter of record that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain approval of the IAC as envisaged under the law, therefore, remanding of the case to the same Assessing Officer for de novo assessm ent was illegal, ultra vires and against the dictates of law.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties were present and have been heard.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the wealth tax return for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee to declare net wealth at Rs, 13,22,000/-. Notices u/S. 16(3), dated 14.1.2002 and 22.1.2002 were issued and served for compliance on 21.1.2002 and 12.2.2002 respectively. As per facts, narrated in the assessm ent order, nobody put up appearance in response to the above-said notices. However, a final notice u/S. 16(3) of the Act on 27.6.2002 for compliance on 29.6.2002 was issued, In the said notice, the assessee was confronted that the valuation of the property situated at 16-A, Hall Road, Lahore would be made in the following manner:-- "In your wealth tax returns for the years 1997-98 to 2000-2001, you have declared property at 16-A, Hall Road, Lahore for a value of Rs. 13,22,000/- respectively. Neither you have filed proper rent agreement nor registered deed of said property. Under these circumstances, the declared value cannot be accepted.
As per PT-I Form available on record, this property is situated at 16-A, Main Hall Road, Lahore and is known as Jamal Market. Total area of the property is 12 marlas and it has 3 storey. The whole of property is let out to as many as 35 tenants who are running different electronics shops in the said property. Keeping in view all these facts, nature, size and location of property, I intend to adopt GALV of the property at average monthly rent per shop at Rs. 5,000/-."
4. The Assessing Officer did not accept the ' declared version of the assessee and proceeded to adopt the value pf each shop at an average monthly rent of Rs. 2,750/- thus computing the total value of the property on the basis of GALV at Rs. 1,15,50,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the above-said assessm ent order, the assessee approached the learned first appellate authority who vide order dated 6.8.2003 remanded the case to the Wealth Tax Officer for de novo assessment with the following directions:--
(i) "Valuation of property should be based on GALV of property after proper scrutiny of rent deed provided by the appellant.
(ii) Adequate opportunity of being heard should be afforded to the appellant."
5. The assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee/appellant has vehemently contested the impugned findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority. He averred at the bar that the learned CIT/WT(A) accepted the assessee's arguments in toto, yet remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. He urged at the bar that all the tenants of the assessee were quite old occupying the property on rent since 1950 and 1960, therefore, the rent paid by these tenants was quite low. He further submitted that the PT-I Form issued by the Excise & Taxation Department showing the complete list of tenants as well as rent paid by them was submitted to the Assessing Officer who ignored it completely and embarked upon framing the assessment on the basis of surmises and conjectures. On the legal premise, the learned AR of the assessee contended that no assessment could be considered valid which was framed without obtaining prior approval of the concerned IAC. It this regard, he asserted that there is plethora of law wherein it has been held time and again by the superior Courts of Pakistan that where law stipulates to act in a prescribed manner and if the same is not complied with, then presumption would be that same has not been done in accordance with law.
6. Coming to the issue Of remanding the case by the learned first appellate authority to the Assessing Officer, the learned AR pleaded that the appellate authority could not remand the case in a mechanical manner unless it was so warranted by the law. He pointed out that especially in view of the observation made by the learned (CIT) where he took cognizance of the fact that the assessm ent has been made without obtaining the approval of IAC, remanding of such a case tantamounts to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to fill in the lacunae left by him in the first round of litigation. He also emphasized that where all the record was available with the Assessing Officer and he had ample opportunity to glean through the same, it would not only be harsh and cumbrous but unjust to force the assessee to be milled once again through the rigorous of law and that too for the follies committed by the departmental officials. To substantiate his contentions, the learned AR relied upon the judgments from different jurisdictions including Patna High Court, In this regard, he relied upon the case of Maharani Kanak Kumari Sahiba Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa, reported as 28 ITR 462. Further reliance was placed on a writ petition bearing No. 2317/02, decided by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and a judgment of the Tribunal reported as 2001 PTD (Trib) 22.
7. We have gone through the submissions made by the rival parties alongwith the case-law cited at the bar. Before we proceed further to record our findings, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant cases-law which have been cited by the learned AR in support of his contentions. In the supra citation, the case was remanded by the Appellate Tribunal to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings. The Hon'ble Judges of Patna High Court held -as under:- "Where all evidence had been produced and the Assistant Commissioner had, after full investigation of the evidence and examination of the accounts, come to a definite finding in favour of the assessee, but the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the income Tax Officer directing him to come to a finding on the same point again after bringing on record further evidence, making a further investigation and examining the accounts again. Held that, on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of remand was not legally valid, and that the appeal preferred to the Appellate Tribunal should be treated as still pending before the Tribunal and should be disposed of by the Tribunal in accordance with law."
Next judgment which was relied upon by the learned AR is writ petition decided by th Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, In the above-said judgment, His Lordship Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar quoted many judgments from Indian Jurisdiction as well as august Supreme Court of Pakistan and Hon'ble High Court. However, the main case which was referred to by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court while deciding the issue was the judgment from the Indian Jurisdiction, It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined tc agree that the remand of the matter in hand betrays an avoidance on the part of the learned Division Bench to decide the issue falling for their consideration. For, no reason legally acceptable for remand was ever recorded. A remand, it has been the consistent view of this Court, generally does not operate to the benefit of either the assessee or the revenue. The power of the Tribunal to remand an issue to sufficiently wide to make a kind of the direction. However, as held by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in re: Maharani Kanal Kumari Sahiba v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1954)y28 ITR 462 where all evidence was produced and the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) had made a definite conclusion in favour of the assessee then setting aside of the order by the Tribunal and a direction for remand to the Assessing Officer for a fresh finding on the same point after bringing on record further evidence was not in accordance with law. Therefore, their Lordships made a rare order in reference jurisdiction under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 holding the appeal before the Tribunal to be still pending for its decision in accordance with law."
8. After attending to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also scanning through the case-law cited at the bar we are of the considered view that the arguments addressed by the learned AR of the assessee carry weight. There are categorical observations made by the learned first appellate authority which are as under:- "Facts of the case have been considered and assessment record also examined. Perusal of record shows that the submissions made by the appellant's AR carry substantial weight, It has been observed that the treatment meted to the appellant indeed harsh and capricious. Valuation of the appellant's property has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 which clearly stipulates that valuation should be based on GALV of the property. The Assessing Officer has failed to cite any cogent reason or bring any tangible evidence on record for adopting his figure of evaluation. He has also failed to obtain approval of the IAC as envisaged under the law. The case is, therefore, remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessm ent with the following specific directions:--
(i) Valuation of property should be based on GALV of property after proper scrutiny of rent deed provided by the appellant.
(ii) Adequate opportunity of being heard should be afforded to the appellant."
9. The operative paragraph produced from the impugned judgment clearly indicates that the learned first appellate authority came to the definite conclusion that the contentions raised by the appellant's AR carried weight, It was also observed by the learned first appellate authority that the treatment meted out to the assessee is indeed harsh and capricious. Further noted, that the learned first appellate authority remarked that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain approval of the IAC as is envisaged under the law. We are at loss to understand that after having made all these observations, whether the learned first appellate authority was within the legal domain to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. He himself should have given findings on the basis of conclusion drawn by him. The precedents from the Indian Jurisdiction as well as the Lahore High Court, Lahore relied upon by the learned AR of the assessee are on all fours to the assessee's case because in somewhat similar circumstances, both the High Courts deprecated the act of remanding the case to the Assessing Officer, It is very much obvious that the learned CIT(A) did not advance any legally acceptable reason for remanding the case.
10. In this view of the fact and also in the light of the supra judgments, we vacate the impugned order and set aside the findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority and send the case back to the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal in the light of the observations made by him and the conclusions reached at.
11. Assessee's appeal stands disposed of accordingly.