ORDER NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. --- An individual through this further appeal for the year 1991-92 assails an order of CIT(A)-IV Lahore recorded on 10-6-95. The sole source of grievance appears to be the valuation and confirmation of 1 kanal plot at Rs. 10.0. 000/-.
2. The assessee individual appears to have been served with a notice u/S. 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance to file return for the year 1991-92. The return was filed on 28-12-1992 returning total income at Rs. 68,159/- being 1/3rd share from a firm M/s Mumtaz Engineering The Mall Lahore. The wealth statement accompanying return indicated purchase of 1 kanal 64/D-I Joher Town Lahore for a consideration of Rs. 2,44,200/- including incidental charges. The assessing officer in the original proceedings found the returned value to be on the lower side on the ground that in the same assessm ent year another assessee of his Circle agreed for adoption of a value or Rs.
3,25,000/- for 12 marlas plot. In the proceedings that ensued an assessment was finally made on 29-8-94 at total income of Rs. 8,48,159/-. This included an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being the estimated price of the plot in question and considered deemed income under the provisions contained in Section 13(l)(d) of the Ordinance. Earlier the submissions made in reply to the notice dated 13-4-93 affirming the returned price to be fair market value was found unconvincing. On first appeal the assessm ent so framed was set aside by C.I.T.(A)-VI Lahore on 5-7-94 with the directions that the value of the plot should be assessed in the light of fair market value after proper confrontation.
3. In the second round the assessee was confronted with yet another plot No. 117/D-I Joher Town Lahore alleged auctioned by the LDA for Rs. 55,000/- per maria. The reply made by the assessee was again found contrary to facts and therefore, the income as well as addition earlier made at Rs.
7,00,000/- was repeated through the second assessment order framed on 30-11-94.
4. Learned first Appellate Authority CIT(A)-VI Lahore whose order dated 10-6-95 is now being impugned before us found the valuation adopted in respect of the plot in question to be fair and the submission made against the assessment order to be devoid of any merits. Resultantly the appeal was dismissed. This has brought the assessee before us.
5. Parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the assessing officer failed to carry out the exact sense and directions contained in the first appellate ing the issue. It is stated that in that order learned first appellate authority found the estimated value to be on the higher side but the assessing officer repeated the same value after remand which amounted to disregard of the directions contained in the remand order. It is also submitted that plot No. 117/D-I measures only 5 marlas and this plot was never auctioned as alleged by the assessing officer in second round of assessm ent proceedings. Learned counsel has also made an application to summon the concerned authorities Estate Officer LDA along with record so that the real situation- with respect to the confronted plot 117/D-I could be determined. The impugned order is otherwise described as cursory and betraying lack of proper application of mind. We are informed that plot in question has already been disposed of by the assessee on 18-4-94 allegedly for a sum of Rs.
2,50,000/-.
6. Learned D.R. On the other hand supports the orders of the authorities below for the reasons stated therein.
7. Having heard the parties we are inclined to partly agree with the submissions made at the bar for the assessee. In the first instance rejection of registered value needs a high degree of evidence or solid basis which does not appear present in this case. Also the assessing officer appears un- certain about the value of the plot inasmuch as in the first round the assessee was confronted with an alleged parallel case in which another assessee of the area agreed to the estimation of a 12 marlas plot at Rs. 3,25,000/- indicating per maria rate at Rs. 27,083/-. In the second round he made reference to another plot which according to the assessee was never auctioned much less to say of yielding a rate of Rs. 55,000/- per maria, the area of this plot is also described at 5 marlas only which again implies that a higher price was paid for it even if the remarks made by the assessing officer are accepted as correct. We have considered the application of - the assessee for adducing additional evidence. However, we do not consider it appropriate to enter upon the kind of inquiry we are being requested. This application ought to have been made at the original stage or at best before the first appellate authority. In absence of any such attempt before the authorities below from the assessee who has continuously been agitating that the plot in question was never auctioned, we well refuse to entertain the application for production of additional evidence at this belated stage of second appeal.
8. However, as observed earlier we are clear in our mind that the assessing officer failed to substantiate his on estimated price of the plot. In this situation we will hold that his confrontation of the alleged parallel case of another assessee of the same area through notice dated 13-4-93.
Should be taken as base line. In the notice the aforesaid assessee Mr. Zahid Imtiaz NTN 1497565 allegedly agreed the adoption of value of a 12 marlas plot at Rs. 3,25,000/-. The per maria price comes approximately to Rs. 27,083/-. The area of the plot being almost one half of the one purchased by the assessee the price to be adopted should also be some what less than the one which was agreed upon between the Revenue and the assessee Mr. Zahid Imtiaz in the parallel case. Since nothing else has been brought on record except to compare the alleged parallel case, we will hold that a sum of Rs. 23,000/- per maria shall be adopted as fair market value of 1 kanal plot in question.
9. Accordingly this appeal succeeds in the manner and to the extent indicated above.