MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- The petitioner, income tax assessee, filed a return of income for assessm ent year 1989-90. The return was subjected to scrutiny by a inspecting Addl.
Commissioner, who vide order dated 23.5.1996 did not accept the value of the shop declared at Rs.
5,30,000/-^and proceeded to evaluate the shop at Rs. 18,30,400/-. This resulted in addition in the income. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by an Appellate Commissioner who reduced the value of shop from Rs. 6,000/- per sq. Ft, to Rs. 3,900/- per sq. Ft. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prayer of his client was that value of shop be fixed with reference to valuation table notified by the District Collector for the purposes of stamp duty. According to the learned counsel this rule of assessment is now a statutory measure in the form of Rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982. No one has turned up for the respondents. They are proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the file of this writ petition. I find that said Rule 207-A was notified vide S.R.O.
550(l)/97, dated 25.7.1997. This appears to be a beneficial legislation inasmuch as discretion of the Assessing Officer/Authority stands curtailed and regulated. To my mind although the Rule was enacted at a point of time later then filing determination/consideration of the return, benefit of the said provision ought to have been given to the petitioner. Reference be made to the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. And others (1993 SCM R 73) - Chief Justice Naseem Hassan Shah (as his Lordship then was) observed in the leading opinion referred to para 282 of "Statutory Construction" by Crawford's (1940 Edition) to hold that a Statute relating to remedial law, may property, in several instances, be given retrospective operation.
4. In the present case Rule 207-A is certainly a. Measure to soften the law in favour of tax-payer.
The assessm ent was finalized on 23.5.1996. The Commissioner made his order on 9.4.1997. While matter was pending before the learned Member (Judicial Income Tax), C.B.R., the said Rule was enacted and since the remedy was available under Section 139 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it can safely be said that the provision stood enacted during the pendency of the proceedings in the matter of said assessm ent. Learned Member, therefore, ought to have taken note of said Rule 207-A and to have given benefit to the petitioner. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. The result would be that Revision Petitions Nos. 8 (22 to 326) inasmuch as they pertain to valuation of the said shop shall be deemed to be pending before the said learned Member, who shall summon the parties' and rehear the matter in the light of observation made above and to decide the same.
A copy of this order be immediately remitted to learned Member (Judicial Income Tax), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad.