ORDER SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, J.- This departmental appeal challenges the order of the learned CIT(A) Zone-2, Lahore is deleting the addition made u/S. 13(1) (d). The assessee in this case is a real estate developer. The assessing officer while finalizing the assessment had found that during the assessm ent year 1990-91 and assessment had found that during the assessment year 1990-91 the assessee had purchased 227 kanal 17 marlas of land in Mozia Janjata for a consideration of Rs.
1,36,71,000/- The average value fell at Rs. 60,000/- per kanal. The assessing officer had rejected the declared version and for reasons as stated in her assessment order had estimated the value the at Rs. 1,90, 000/- per kanal resulting in the determination of the total value at Rs. 4,32,91,500/-. The thus made and addition of Rs. 2,96, 20, 500/-u/S. 13(l)(d),
2. Before the learned CIT(A) it had been agitated that land under reference had been sold to the assessee company by virtue of four sale deeds and there was not single individual seller. It was also agitated that the land is located at a place to which there is no direct access from any major road or even minor proper metaled road. Further more the land itself is deeper than the natural surface level. It had also been agitated that the cases quoted by the assessing officer were not compareable because these were situated in the heart of the city where numerous prestigious housing schemes had been fully developed. It has been agitated that the assessing officer should not have discarded the sale deed because the law on the valuation of the sale deed is well settled and this was supported by the case cited as (1981) SCMR 701/703 wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan had laid down that an endorsement of the sub-register on the back of the deed mentioning the amount paid or received before him naises a legal presumption favouring the actually of the consideration and if it is not rebutted by any eviderice it had to be given effect. The A.R. Had also supported his arguments by relying on case of the P.B, of ITA at 54 Tax 85 and also AIR 1915 P.C.
174. Before the learned CIT (A) the counsel for the appellant had also argued that the assessing officer in rejecting the sale deed without any basis or evidence had acted contrary to the "Kanoon-e-Shahadat". The learned CIT(A) had found merit in the arguments of the counsel and he felt that the understatement in this case had not been made out. It was his opinion that the sale deed being a public document cannot be discarded just on whins and surmise unless reliable evidence in rebuttal is led. It was also his view that the to had failed to bring any material evidence on record justifying the rejection of the declared version and he had consequently deleted the addition made.
3. Before us the learned L.A. Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad Butt agitated that the assessing officer had correctly determined the value of the land. It was stand that two sale deeds had been finalized on 1.11.1989 by real brothers for land measuring 125 kanal and 17 marlas and two sale deeds had been finalized 13.1.1990 for 102 kanals by two different brothers. It had been agitated that the sale deed is recital of contract between the parties and is find the contracting parties but does not find the to to it. He argued that section 13 empowers the to to assessee whether fair market value had been adopted and he can discard the declared version if he disagrees with it. It was further agitated that "Kanoon-e-Shahadat" is basically an agreement between the two parties and no necessarily to be relied upon for the purposes of Income Tax assessments. The counsel also produced the Survey Map of Lahore to arguments his stand that the land in question was located in an area which was in state of development and there were a number of housing schemes situated in that locality. It was also agitated that the value of the purchase of land is understand in order to void stamp duty.
4. On the other hand it was argued by the A.r. That the department had no evidence on record to establish the value determined by the to. He also relied on the survey map of Lahore to show that the area where the land is located was at a distance of 30. k.m. From the District Courts.
5. We have examined the same and find that he land which has been cited as comparable by the to and no which the counsel for the department was relying is located in the mid of developed areas or near to developed areas while the assessed's land is situated in an area which during the assessm ent year under appeal was still not ripe for development. Further more we find that the to discarded the assessee sale deed without providing any proof to the contrary. We feel that P.B. Of 11A in 54 Tax 85 had judicially directed that as a universal rule the value declared in the sale deed should be accepted. The to must find some basis for revaluation before rejecting the value of the sale deed and the value of immovable property is not supposed to be determine with reference to potentialities which are remote and speculative transactions should not be relied upon. The sale deed being a public document is a piece of evidence to establish the payment for the property sold and the amount stated therein is to be accepted as correct as it carries an element of sanctity until it is controverted by a strong and cogent evidence to the contrary. In this case the plots had been sold through deeds carried out on different dates by different people and were duly registered by the concerned Government Authorities. Section 13 definitely empowers the to to assessee the value where fair market value had been adopted but it does not empower the assessing officer to discard the declared version on mere whims particularly when a due contract is available. It is necessary to adduce positive evidence to discard the sale deed which in this case we finds not been done. In the event we are inclined to agree with the findings of the learned CIT(A)
Zone-12, Lahore and maintain his order.
6. The departmental appeal stains rejected.