ORDER IFTIKHAH AHMAD BAJAW, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. In the three appeals against AAO's orders relating to wealth tax assessm ents for Assessment Years 1983-94 to 1985-86 of the following properties is contested:-
2. Agricultural land.
The property located in Chak No. 284/NB Faisalabad 27 Kanals 16 Assessment Year 1983-84, 25 3/4 kanals is Assessm ent Year 1984-85' and.23 3/4 kanals during Assessment Year 1985-86 was claimed to be agricultural land. Valuation on the basis of Pius was shown to be below the taxable limit. The to treated parcel of 8 kanals 13 marlas as urban land in Assessment Year 1983-84 while the entire holding was treated as urban property in the next two assessments. Land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas was held to be urban property on the basis of a khasra girdawri. Appellant has pointed out that in the said khasra girdawri, land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas belonging to the brother of the appellant was actually shown to be nonagricultural whereas on the sold page of khasra girdawri appellant's holding of kanals 2 marlas had clearly been mentioned as cultivated. It was also pointed out by appellant's authorized Representative that even in subsequent assessm ents i.e. For Assessm ent Year 1986-87 onwards the land had been treated as agricultural. It is thus evident that land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas was treated as under land on an erronesus assumption. Likewise the entire available land (i.e. 25) limine in Assessment Year 1983-84 and 23 kanals in Assessm ent Year 1985-86) the treated as non- agricultural without placing any material on record. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly that attest 1 parcel of land measuring 9 kanals 2 marlas was still agricultural. Considering the facts available on record it is evident that the amount of tis. 4,14,000/- representing value 8 kanals 13 marlas land was wrongly included to taxable assets for Assessm ent Year 1983-84. The said amount would, thereforebe excluded. So far as the next two, assessm ent are concerned, evidence regarding the nature of 1 parcel of land measuring 9 kanals 2 marals is already on record. The position regarding the other land however needs reexamination. Only if the nature of the property had been charged by discontinuing its cultivation and conversion of the same into plots for sales, the property would be treated as non- agricultural. If, on the other hand, no stops had been taken to change the nature of the property the entire land would be treated as agricultural property for the next ten yeiars also.
3. Haveli In Chak No. 284/LB, Faisalabad.
This property developed on the assessee by inheritance on the death of his father 31.12.1983. Of this property of this all in tax assessm ent for Assessment Year 1983-84 was, therefore, unwarranted and would be excluded from the value of for Assessment Year 1983-84. For Assessment Years 1984-85 and 1985-86, actual share of the property i.e. 7/36 would be taxed in the hands of the appellants instead of 7/16 share. The fact ^that the appellant had only 7.36 share in inheritance had been accepted h the Act while discussing valuation of the house in Chak No. 284/LB. Though he had mentioned that position of the haveli was also the same but no specific direction had been recorded in his order. The to will modify the assessment for (Assessment Years 1984-85 and 1985- 86 and adopt the valuation of the haveli on the basis of the corrected share in inheritance. Shops.
Valuation of 16 shops shown at Rs.1, 80,000/- for all three years was not accepted and was estimated at 3,50,000/-, Rs. 4,0, 000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- for the" three years respectively. The valuation for the first year dees not appear to the ^unreasonable. However, enhancement of the same for the next two years was without any basis and apparently unjustified. Valuation of the shops for each of the three years in accordingly fixed at Rs. 3,50,000/-
5. Objections in respect of other properties were without any merit do not warranted any interference.
6. The three appeals succeed as indicated above.