MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--1. The facts are that the assets declared by the petitioner in his Wealth Tax Return for the assessm ent year 1984-85, included a plot measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas located on Davis Road, Lahore which was valued at Rs. 1,30,000. The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the declared value and assessed the plot at the rate of Rs. 15,10,000 per kanal. The petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner, Wealth Tax (Appeals) which failed. He then preferred an appeal before the Tribunal who by its order dated 13th April, 1987 gave some relief to the petitioner and fixed the value at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000 per kanal. He then applied to the Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, to refer to the High Court for its opinion, the following questions of law said to have arisen out of its order aforesaid:- "(1) Whether the order of the Tribunal in appeal is a speaking order and is maintainable in law.
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal determining the value of the plot of land in question at Ks. 10,00,000 per kanal has been arrived at in accordance with law.
(3) Whether the Tribunal has acted in accordance with law in arriving at a valuation of the plot of land in question in disregard of the C.B.R's Circular in this behalf C. No. 19(7)- W.T/IT-VI/79, dated 21st August, 1979.
(4) In view of the fact that the assessee had not been confronted with the material which hud been taken into consideration by the W.T.O. For determining the valuation of the plot on Davis Road, Lahore, whether no proper and legal hearing within the meaning of Section 16(3) was given by the W.T.O. To the assessee. If so, whether in the absence of such a hearing the assessment is against law and fit to be quashed.
(5) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal for adopting a value of Rs. 10,00,000 per kanal for the plot of the assessee situate at Davis Road, Lahore, in respect of the valuation date for the assessm ent year 1984-85.
(6) Whether the valuation of the plot in question adopted by the Tribunal arises from a misreading of evidence and for that reason is not maintainable in law.
(7) In view of the fact that the Tribunal did not confront the assessee of its intention to value the plot of land at Davis Road, Lahore at Rs. 10,00,000 per kanal; whether the hearing given by the Tribunal in appeal met with the requirement of a proper and legal hearing within the meaning of Section 24(5) of the Wealth Tax Act? If not, whether the valuation made by the Tribunal is maintainable in law."
By its order dated 24th February, 1988 the Tribunal refused the application. The assessee has now come to this Court under Section 27(4) of the Act.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The arguments addressed by him were confined to questions Nos. 3, 5 and 7 only. The other questions thus stood abandoned. To begin with question No. 3, we find that under the Central Board of Revenue's Circular referred to therein, a plot other than the one located in an approved Housing Scheme, and allotted against a fixed price, has to be assessed according to its actual purchase price. In the submission of the learned counsel the plot in dispute is to be assessed on the basis of its actual purchase price which is Rs. 1,30,000 only. It is thus, contended that the declaration of value by the petitioner, is in consonance with the Circular and should have been accepted by the departmental authorities. It is however, conceded that the attention of the Tribunal was not drawn to the Board's Circular. This issue was thus not before the Tribunal and could not have been adverted to by it.
Such a question cannot be said to have arisen out of the Tribunal's order. This argument also prevailed with the Tribunal with which we entirely agree.
3. As regards the other two questions, the petitioner's argument is that the fixation of value at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000 per kanal is not based on any evidence and even if there was some material before the Tribunal, the petitioner was not confronted therewith.
4. While fixing the value of a vacant site, for the purpose of levy under the Wealth Tax Act, the Assessing Authority has to be guided by Rule 8 of the Wealth Tax Rules, which provides that the value of the plot is to be assessed with due regard to nature and size of the property, the amenities available and the price prevailing for similar properties in the locality. In this respect in the Wealth Tax Officer's order it is stated:-- "Plot Commercial at Davis Road, Lahore in the name of wife; the value of which has been declared at Rs. 1,30,000. In this respect, a specific notice under Section 18(3) was issued to the assessee showing intention of the undersigned to assess it on prevailing market rate for Commercial Plot at Davis Road, Lahore between Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per marla. It will not be out of place to mention here that rates of real estate (plots) have increased considerably even in far-flung areas of Lahore like Defence Housing Society which is almost at a distance of 18 K.M. From Davis Road, Lahore where Commercial plots during the period under assessment were being sold between Rs.
30,000 to Rs. 50,000 per marla and in a plot like Davis Road, Lahore which is the most poshed, Commercial and as well as is situated in the vicinity of Government House adjoining The Mall on one side and on the other side with Empress Road, Lahore."
5. It is discernible from the record that before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the petitioner contended that the plot was sold away by him on 3rd October, 1985 for a consideration of Rs.
8,00,000 and the same price was adopted by the Excise and Taxation Department for recovery of gain tax. The Commissioner dilated upon this point at some length, discarded the value determined for imposition of gain tax and in upholding the assessment made by the Wealth Tax Officer maintained that in such like cases the price actually paid was clandestinely concealed. It was after perusal of the record and examining the views of the Authorities below that the Tribunal assessed the plot at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000 per kanal.
6. It is well-settled that the facts stated but uncontroverted can furnish a basis on which the Tribunal can properly arrive at a conclusion. There is also authority for the proposition that when the version declared by an assessee is rejected, the Assessing Authority can embark upon guess work. But such estimation should not be wholly speculative and a leap in the dark. It has to be founded on some relevant material which may include the attending circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal was conscious of the location and commercial nature of the plot but was also posted with the information by*the petitioner that its frontage was only 80 feet. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that the Gain Tax Authority assessed its value approximately at Rs. 13,800 per marla but at the same time the Tribunal was not oblivious of the observations of the Commissioner on the unsatisfactory mode of determination of sale price adopted by that department and concealment of real value made by the parties entering into transaction of immovable property. It was also before the Tribunal that according to the Wealth Tax Officer the market value of such plots on Davis Road ranged between Rs. 75,000 and Rs.1,00,000 per marla and that commercial plots at a considerable distance from Davis Road were sold during the period under assessment at a price between Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 50,000 per marla. It was in the light of these facts that the Tribunal chose to fix the value at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per marla and thus took a lenient view as this much price, according to the Assessing Officer, could be fetched by a commercial plot located in an area of lesser significance. We do not think that this determination is divorced from the facts appearing on the record. Needless to state that even circumstantial evidence may be cogent enough to support an inference of facts and the facts admitted or proved may justifiably lead to further deduction of facts. It shall not be out of place to refer here to the observations of Lord Atkinson in G.
W. Rly Company v. Bater (1922) 8 Tax Cases 231 (at page 244): "Their (Commissioner's) determinations of questions of pure fact are not to be disturbed, any more than are the findings of a jury, unless it should appear that there was no evidence before them upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come; and this, even though the Court of Review would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from others."
Undoubtedly the finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. A finding of fact may be disturbed only if it is a case of no evidence or it is manifestly unreasonable and perverse. We do not think that upon the facts of the case the Tribunal's decision would call for interference on the ground that there was no legal evidence before it. Question No. 5 thus, does not arise out of order of the Tribunal.
7. The last question is also without any substance. The petitioner was served with a notice by the Wealth Tax Officer and informed of his intention to assess the plot at a value between Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 per marla. It is not the petitioner's case that he was not heard by the Tribunal on this point. As already maintained the Tribunal took a lenient view and assessed the value at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per marla. All these facts together with the factors germane to Rule 8 floated at the surface of the record. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner was taken unaware or was deprived of the opportunity to adequately place his case before the Tribunal. Needless to state that the Tribunal was not supposed to disclose to the petitioner the precise figure at which it intended to assess the plot, before the pronouncement of its decision.
8. For all these reasons we entirely agree with the Tribunal that no question of law arises from its order dated 13th April, 1987 to justify reference to the High Court. Dismissed in limine.