Through this order, we propose to dispose of WTAs Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of 2003, filed under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of these appeals that appellants/assessee are all members of AOP namely M/s. Afeal Plaza carrying on business of construction, sale and letting, of immovable property situated at 10-C, Shah Alam Market, Lahore. Said AOP was assessed for wealth tax in respect of the above-mentioned immovable property in terms of provision of Section 23(1)(5)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The appellants/assessee submitted their tax returns in their individual capacity in the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 claiming exemption of the business capital invested in the business of AOP. Said exemption was allowed by the Wealth Tax Officer. Subsequently, IAC issued a show-cause notice under Section 17-B of the Wealth Tax Act to the appellant assessee on the ground that the assessm ent allowing exemption as aforesaid was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The explanations offered by the assessee were found to be unsatisfactory and rejected, whereafter the assessment order was modified and the capital of the assessee in the business of the AOP was added to net wealth. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide the orders from which the captioned WTAs arise.
3. Counsels for the parties have been heard and the record appended perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/assessee that the assets were already subjected to tax in the hands of the AOP, hence, could not be taxed again in the hands of the individual members, Identical legal question came up for determination before another Division Bench of this Court in WTA 8 of 2003 and the following observations were made:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant repeats his arguments which were earlier advanced before the Tribunal and repelled. Learned Members of the Tribunal rightly observed that immovable property of the AOP being capital contribution of its members, it was required to be included in the net wealth of the individual members. The claim of the appellant that his assets were being subjected to tax twice may very well be right as a fact.
However, there I no legal bar, nor the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to bring home any provision of the late Act which in any manner contemplated that one asset could not be brought to tax in the hands of two different assessee. We will also agree with the learned Member of the Tribunal that as the AOP's capital is not its liability the individual share holding of each member must form part of his total wealth.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also made a reference to the definition of the word "net wealth" as contained in Section 2(16)(iii) of the late Act, However, we are of the view that the definition excluding the value of right, title or interest of a person in a joint property treated as an asset of an association of persons is not attracted in the case in hand. Where co-owners, in a property have been assessed an as association of persons, obviously their share in the property assessed as AOP is not includable in their net wealth, In the case of an AOP whose assets attract the incidence of taxation in view of Section 2(5)(ii) is an independent and different assessee though it certainly comprises of the individual members. Since an AOP holding immovable property for the purpose of business of construction and sale or letting out was contemplated to be an independent assessee under the said definition contained in Section 2(5)(ii), the definition of "net wealth" in its respect as contained in Section 2(16)(iii) was not attracted. The observations of the learned Member of the Tribunal made in the impugned order with regard to the distinction between an AOP's capital an4 its assets are therefore not open to exceptions."
5. In fact, the questions attempted to be raised through these appeals have already been decided in the afore-referred judgment relevant portion whereof has been reproduced above.
Consequently, we hold that order of the Tribunal in these appeals is in consonance with the decision rendered by D.B. Of this Court referred to above and no exception can be taken thereto.
Consequently, these appeals are dismissed.