JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.- These two appeals bearing ITA No.65-2001 and ITA No.66-2001 involve identical questions of (aw and facts and are therefore decided together through this judgment;
2. Upon notices under Section 17 read with Section 14(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, returns for the assessm ent years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 were filed by an AOP i.e. Muhammad- Shoe 'Market, Moti Bazar, Lahore. This jointly owned market comprised three level construction over 10 marlas of (arid and was Jet out by the joint owners. The assessment was made by the Assessing Officer i.e. The Special Officer of Income Tax/Wealth' Tax by working out General Annual Letting Value (GALV)* at Rs.33,84,000/- for each assessment;year. This order was appealed against by the appellant by filing three appeals i.e. One for each year. Through order dated (31.03.4.999, the Appellate Additional Commissioner of Income, Tax/Wealth Tax accepted the appeal in respect of the assessm ent year 1996-97 by setting aside the assessment order thereof and directing re- assessm ent by the Assessing Office . However, appeals as to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were rejected for the sole reason that "The ALV was enhanced with the prior approval of Rarige IAC". Appeals thereagainst were dismissed by the' learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore through order dated 01.02.2001 by recording that:- "The value adopted for the years under consideration has been worked out properly and statutory approval of the IAC has also been obtained as stated in the assessment order and as confirmed by IAC, the two appeals are therefore dismissed being devoid of merits."
3. Hence the present further appeals seeking opinion of this Court oh the following questions.
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when both the authorities below have failed to give any plausible reason for determining A.L.V., the learned Tribunal was right in confirming the A.L.V. And the capitalized value was on the ground that prior approval of IAC. Has been obtained?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when particularly no basis of adopting A.L.V. Have been provided, the mere approval , of the IAC. Shall justify the determination of G.A.L.V. Qua the capitalized value?
(3) Whether on the .Facts and in the circumstances of the case when no basis whatsoever have been provided by the lower forums, the mere approval .of the I.A.C. shall satisfy the conditions for determining capitalized value in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules?
4. The - respondents an Deared through Mr. Muhammad Aliyas Khan; Advocate.
5. The learned counsel for the parties fully argued the appeals and requested the same to be treated as admitted/Pacca appeals which are accordingly being decided as admitted appeals.
6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find a lot of substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal decided the appeals without, .Considering the essential conditions and parameters prescribed in Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 which reads as under:--- "Rule 8(3)- Valuation of lands and buildings. The value of lands and building [excluding agricultural land.] shall be estimated with due regard to the nature and size of the property, the amenities available and the price prevailing for similar [property] in the same locality or in the neighbourhood of the said locality."
7. Bare reading of the above reproduced Rule reveals that the value of the lands and the buildings (excluding the agricultural land) is to be assessed with due regard to;
(i) The nature of the property;
(ii) The size of the property;
(iii) The amenities provided in the property; and
(iv) The price prevailing for similar property in the same locality or in the neighbourhood of the same locality.
8. The learned Tribunal in exercise of its appellate authority was obligated to examine as to whether the first appellate authority and the Assessing Officer had festimated the value of the above referred building in keeping with the four parameters prescribed in the above reproduced Rule or not. And also as to whether the powers were exercised by the assessing authorities in terms of the mandates laid down in the Rules or not. Instead the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the first appellate authority and the Assessing Officer on the basis of general and wide observations that the value was worked out properly and the statutory approval of IAC had been obtained. The learned Tribunal thus upheld the orders respectively passed by the Special Officer of the Income Tax and Wealth Tax and the Appellate Additional Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax who in turn appear to have exercised their powers oblivious of the mandatory requirements of Rule 8(3) of the wealth Tax Rules, 1963. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal recorded the objection of the appellant that the Assessing Officer had given no basis or reasons for evaluating the property at the impugned value yet the learned Tribunal failed to deal with and decide the same.
9. Without giving due regard to the parameters laid down in Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, the learned Tribunal was not justified in confirming the capitalized value of the property on the basis of so called ALV merely because the same had been approved by the IAC.
10. The questions as raised by the appellant are thus answered in the negative. As a result, the appeals shall be reheard and re-decided by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of the law and the Rules.
11. Decided as above.