ORDER Abdul RASHID QURESH1, Judicial MEMBER - These are two further appeals pertaining to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 filed at they instance of the assesses in which the orders passed by the learned A.A.C. Range-IV Lahore on 21-l 1-1991 and 22-10-1991 respectively have been challenged.
2. Both the learned A.R. And D.R. Are presents
3. Relevant facts of the case are that the assesses an individual against whom original assessment with regard to the year 1987-88 was framed on 30-7-88 on total wealth of Rs.7809450/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (appeal) who set aside the assessment vide order dated i' 10-1988. Statutory notices were served and complied with. The Valuation of House No. 86-C New Muslim Town. Lahore was adopted at Rs. 15.00 IACs and the Valuation of house No.85-C, New Muslim Town, Lahore was estimated at Rs.6.00 IACs and an addition of Rs.38.00 IACs was made by the learned Wealth Tax Officer Cir-Ill. Lahore vide order dated 16-7-1989. For the assessm ent year 1988-89 original return was filed on 15- 10-1988 declaring total wealth at Rs.4353947/-. Subsequently revised return was filed declaring total wealth at Rs.3425227/-. The learned Wealth Tax Officer Cir-III, Lahore estimated the value of House No.85-G, New Muslim Town, Lahore at Rs.6.50.000/- and of House N0.86-G. New Muslim Town. Lahore at Rs. 16.00 IACs vide order dated 16-7-1989.
4. Aggrieved by both the impugned orders, the assesses preferred two appeals before the learned A.A.C, Range-IV, Lahore who dismissed the appeal pertaining to assessment year 1987-88 vide order dated 21-11-1991 and pertaining to assessment year 1988-89 vide order dated 22-10-1991.
Hence the instant appeals.
5. The assesses has taken five grounds of appeal for the year 1987-88 and nine grounds for the year 1988-89. However, the learned A.R. Has argued both the appeals on the issue of Valuation of residential house at No.85/86- New Muslim Town. Lahore on the enhancement of wealth by Rs.38.00 IACs on account of intangible addition for the year 1987-88. It is contended that the assessee built a house at 86-C, New Muslim Town. Lahore by investment at Rs.3,50,000/ in the period relevant to 1983-84 assessm ent. It is further contended that the house was used for self- residence and as the accommodation was insufficient for the assessee's family. Therefore. House No. 85- C adjacent to House No.86-C was purchased on 7-4-1984 for a declared value of Rs. 5.00 IACs. It is emphasised by the learned A.R. That the partition wall between both the houses was removed and those were converted into a single unit. The house has one boundary wall and one entrance gate. The learned A.R. Forcefully submits that claim tor exemption of both the houses As a self occupied unit was not admitted. The learned A.R. Further submits that two separate units exist for which form PT-1's had been issued by the Excise and Taxation Deptt but actually it is a one house being used lor self-residence. The learned A.R. Claims exemption as envisaged under section 5(1) (xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The learned A.R. Contends that there is no justification lor making an addition of Rs.38.00 IACs. The learned D.R. Strongly supported both the orders passed by the learned A.A.C. Range -IV, Lahore.
6. We have heard both the learned A.R. And D.R. And perused all the order passed by the learned lower authorities. It is an established fact that residential house of whatsever size, if sell-occupied is exempted from Wealth Tax Act u/s. 5(1) (xvi). There, is no restriction as to the size of the property how large it may be. The assessee's plea that both the units constitute one residential house and are being occupied for self-residence carries weight, as already conceeded by the department from 1989-90 to onward. The claim for exemption of self-occupied house being Legal and justified is hereby allowed. The assessee has not claimed any credit for the addition of Rs.38.00 IACs in the form of cash or any moveable or immovable property, there being no tangible asset. The learned A.A.G, was not justified in upholding the Valuation of an asset which never existed. In the income tax assessm ent the value of asset is taken as cost whereas in the self-assessment the Valuation is assessed at the fair market rate on the Valuation date. The asset having being valued at fair market value, there is no justification left for further making the aggrieved addition of Rs.38.00 IACs.
As the asset which was neither declared nor available in an form with the assessee. As the addition is without basis, therefore, it is deleted accordingly. No other point was pressed.
7. Both the appeals succeed in the manner as indicated above.