ORDER Muhammad ZAMAN khan, member.- Through this single order we propose to dispose of the titled two cross appeals which have arisen out of one and the same order rendered by the then CIT(A) Faisalabad on 8.8.1989. Originally the assessment order was formulated by the I.T.O.
Companies Circle, Faisalabad on 15.6.1989. The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. The assessee is a Director in A.G. Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., Faisalabad, During the year under review the assessee had derived income from salary and property in the following manner
1. Salary Income Rs. 2,04,000/-
2. Property Income Rs. 9,548/- Total 2,13,548/-
2. The brief facts of the matter are that during the perusal of the wealth statement filed by the assessee for the period ending 30.6.1988 it was found that the assessee had purchased l/4th share in a plot of land situated in Chak No. 213 RB, Faisalabad for a total consideration of Rs. 21.000/- including the registration expenditure. The I.T.O, found that the price of the plot was grossly mis- understand by the assessee. The I.T.O, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the price of the plot be not adopted at a valuation ranging between Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 40.000/- per maria.
Ultimately the valuation was determined at Rs. 30,000/- per maria. The value of the share of the plot of the assessee was determined accordingly at Rs. 1.91,250/- and an addition of Rs. 1,72,250/- was accordingly made, in the total income of the assessee under Section 13(1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979.
3. The assessee had declared Rs. 60,000/- as household expenses. These were also found low by the I.T.O, and an addition of Rs. 24,000/- was also made by the I.T.O, under Section 13(1) (e) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
4. A sum of Rs. 2400/- was also added under Rule 13(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1982 on the plea that the assessee was using the car of the Company for personal purposes.
5. In the above circumstances, the net income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 4, 12,198/-
6. On the contrary the plea of the assessee was that the valuation shown in the Registered Deed was correct. Similarly the household expenses as disclosed by- the assessee were also alleged to be correct. The case of the assessee was that the disclosed income at Rs. 2,13,548/- be accepted.
Aggrieved by the order of the I.T.O, the assessee had filed first appeal whereby all the three additions as described above were contested by the assessee.
8. The CIT(a) vide the impugned order dated 8.8.1989 had deleted the addition of Rs. 1,72, 250/- for various reasons given in his order. However, the additions of Rs. 24,00/- and Rs. 2400/- as explained above have since maintained by the CIT(a).
9. The revenue has assailed the order dated 8.8.1989 alleging that there was no justification for the CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 1,72,250/- which according to the department was quite fair and in line with the other parallel cases regarding the purchase of land.
10. On the other hand the assessee has filed the cross appeal saying that the CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the additions made on account of household expenses and perquisites.
11. As both the appeals are inter-linked, as indicated above, they are being disposed of through this consolidated order.
12. We have heard the arguments addressed by the learned representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the orders which have been rendered in this case by the departmental authorities.
13. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,72,250/- for the reasons that the assessing officer has ignored and violated the provisions of Section 13 of Income Tax Ordinance before making the said addition, that the precedent cases relied upon by the I.T.O, in determining the price of Rs.
30,000/- per maria were not applicable in the case in hand and that the stated Rule in the Registration Deed could not be rejected by the I.T.O in the given circumstances of the case. In support of his order the CIT(A) has also relied upon the Notification by virtue of which the Collector concerned had fixed the value of various categories of land and the transactions of the sale of land in the similar circumstances as that of the case of the assessee and it has been found by CIT(A) that the value of the plot purchased by the assessee was quite in line with the value fixed by the Collector of similar land and various other deals, as described in the order of the CIT(A).
14. Be that as it may it has been argued by the learned D.R. That the value of the plot of the assessee was determined by the I.T.O, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the view point of the assessee was also taken into consideration before the matter was finalized.
The perusal of the relevant orders indicates that the contention of the learned D.R.Is not devoid of force. We are, therefore, unable to look eye with the CIT(A) so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned.
15. Regarding the determination of the value of land at the rate of Rs. 30,000/-per maria by the I.T.O, we find that the said order was not passed on the basis of cogent and relevant material. The I.T.C.
Has himself conceded in his order that the plot of the assessee did not adjoin the lands in regard to which reliance was placed for determining the value of the plot of assessee. It is also not clear from the order passed by the I.T.O, that the plot of the assessee and the other so called similar plots were of the same status and value. On the contrary the CIT(A) has referred to various parallel cases in which the value of those plots was also found in line with the price of the plot of the assessee. The Notification issued by the Collector was also found in consonance with the plea of the assessee, regarding the valuation of the plot of the assessee.
16. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the price of the plot disclosed by the assessee was low.
17. Besides the above it has been rightly pointed out by the CIT(A) that the I.T.O, was not competent to reject the valuation shown in the Registered Deed unless he had positive evidence in his possession to controvert the same. The CIT(A) has also referred to certain cases which were decided by the Tribunal and in which it has been held that the Registration Deed being a public document, the price of property mentioned in it possessed an element of sanctity unless it was rebutted through cogent evidence. So far as the present case is concerned it is manifest that there was no such evidence in the custody of the I.T.O, and he has proceeded to disbelieve the version of the assessee basing his order merely on conjectures and surmises. The estimated value as such does not stand supported from any evidence on the record. Besides the authorities mentioned in the order passed by the CIT(A) on the relevant point, learned A.R. Of the assessee has also referred to the two latest authorities in NTR 1995 Trib 100 and NTR 1995 Trib 109 in which it has also been held that the Tax Authorities cannot throw away a legal document like a Registered Deed on their pure whims and in the absence of any proof regarding the price being nigher they are supposed on abide by the Registered Deed and the declared version had to be accepted.
18. In the above circumstances we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.
1,72,250/- made under Section 13(1) (d) by the I.T.O. The order passed by the CIT(A) in this regard is, therefore, upheld.
19. The I.T.O, had found that the household expenses declared by the assessee at Rs. 60,000/- per year were not upto the mark in the present cost of living index. The assessee was also found to be residing in the most prestigious locality of Faisalabad city and was also maintaining a high standard of living, In these circumstances an addition of Rs. 24,000/- in the household expenses of the assessee is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference at our level. Similarly under the head perquisites an amount of Rs. 2400/- has also %een rightly added towards the total income of the assessee as prescribed under Rule 13(2) of the income Tax Rules, 1982, because the assessee was using the car for personal purposes though it was being maintained by the Company.
20. As a sequel to the above, we have reached the irresistible conclusion that the order passed by the CIT(A) is unexceptionable. Hence the same is hereby confirmed in toto.
21. As a result thereof both the cross appeals being devoid of force merit dismissal and the same are accordingly dismissed.