W. T. A. NO. 37 OF 1980-81, DECIDED ON 22ND MAY, 1983. Versus W. T. A. NO. 37 OF 1980-81, DECIDED ON 22ND MAY, 1983.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI (CHAIRMAN):--- This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner B‑Range, L ......... Pertaining to wealth‑tax charge year 1979‑80. The first objection is directed against the adoption of the value of a house at K G M Mills at Rs. 50,000 as against Rs. 10,000 declared by the assessee, who admittedly is its co‑owner to the extent of one‑half share. The first appellate authority has confirmed the order of the Wealth‑tax Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plot on which the house is cons tructed, was purchased on 16‑8‑1974 for a total consideration of Rs. 12,350 and a small construction was made thereon, later on. In the charge year 1974‑75 the assessee had declared the value of his half share in the said house at Rs. 10,000 which was assessee's at Rs. 30,000 by Wealth Tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 26‑7‑1976 in W. T. A. Rio. 11/75‑76 fixed the value of assessee's share at Rs. 20,000. He was unable to give information regarding the assessment year 1975‑76 as it was not available with him. In respect of the subsequent three assessment years 1976‑77 to 1978‑79 the assessee's share in the property was, according to him, assessed at Rs. 25,000 each year. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against the assessments so made. The annual letting value of this house as determined by the Rating Authority under section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, according to the appellant's counsel, was Rs. 6,000. The value of this property could, therefore, at best be determined at Rs. 60,000 in terms of the proviso to rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963. The learned counsel for the appellant was, however unable to give us the exact year when the A. L. V. of this property was assessed by the Rating Authority. This contention was also raised before the first appellate authority but it was repelled by her with these observation; Any valuation made by the local Rating Authority is not binding on the Wealth Tax Officer if the value of such authority is less than the value which the property would fetch if let out. 'The annual letting value declared (adopted) at Rs. 10,000 for a house at M is certainly not excessive and, as such, he has adopted the total value of the house at ten times of the A. L. V, and be did not require any approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as contended by the Authorised Representative. The adoption of one‑half share by the appellant at 50 % being in order is confirmed. "The counsel for the appellant further argued that the Area Rating Officer had assessed that the property in question was reasonably from year to year at Rs. 6,000 and hence the onus was entirely on the Wealth Tax Officer to demolish this determination by bringing some material on record for holding fixing the annual letting value of the house in question at any higher figure than the one determined by the Excise and Taxation Authority. According to him, the impugned assessment is arbitrary, excessive arid whimsical.

2. The learned Departmental Representative was unfortunately not pos sessed of the relevant records and hence he was unable to render any sub stantial assistance to us.

3. We have given our earnest consideration to the submissions made ate the Bar and have also carefully perused the impugned orders of both the officers below and we are of the opinion that the annual letting value of the property as determined by the Excise and Taxation Authority is not binding on the Wealth Tax Officer, who may determine the Annual letting value of any property independently of the valuation fixed by the aforesaid authority. Keeping in view the history of the case as alluded to above, we are of the opinion that the A. L. V. of Rs. 10,000 as adopted by the Wealth Tax Office and confirmed by the first appellate authority is patently on the higher side. The learned counsel for the appellant also could not authoritatively state as to when A. L. V. of Rs. 6,000 was assessed by the Excise and Taxation Authority. Looking to the undisputed fact that the A. L. V. of properties is constantly showing an upward trend in every part of the country it would, in our opinion, be fair if it is adopted at Rs. 8,000. We order accordingly.

4. The next objection is directed against the confirmation of the A. L. V. at Rs. 1,20,000 of the building situated in S .. A .. M L The assessee appellant has one‑fourth share in this building, He declared the value of his share at Rs. 1,19,735. The Wealth Tax Officer observed that A. L. V. of this building was fixed at Rs. 78,900 in the assessment year 1975‑76. He was of the view that there had been at least 10% increase in A. L. V. over that of the assessment year 1975‑76. He was therefore estimated the A. L. V. of this building for the year under appeal at Rs. 1,20,000 and its total value at ten times there of viz. at Rs. 12,00,000. He thus estimated the assessee's one‑fourth share at As. 3 lakh. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as already stated, failed. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissions, in her order observed: "from the value of the A. L. V. fixed by the Area Rating Authority at Rs. 78,000 in the assessment year 1975‑76, the adoption of A. L. V. at Rs. 1,20,000 by the Wealth Tax Officer is the assessment year 1979‑80, cannot be considered excessive and as market value of property has been taken at ten times of the A. L. V., Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's approval is not required.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two‑fold contentions before us. In the first instance, he submitted that the A. L. V. as adopted for the charge year 1975‑76 should have stayed for number of years and it was thus improper to change it so soon. The second leg of his argument was that in the subsequent charge year 1980‑81, the Excise and Taxation Authorities had assessed the A.L.V. of the entire building at Rs. 76,080 and hence that A. L. V. as adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer is excessive. we do not find any substance in the grievance of the appellant. Looking to the nature and size of the property, the A. L. V. as adopted by the officers Below cannot but be said to be fair and reasonable and we do not find any justification to interfere therewith. In so far as the valuation adopted by the Provincial Authorities are concerned, it is sufficient to observe that it is only relevant circumstance but is in no way binding on the Wealth Tax Office who, is in our opinion, legally competent to hold and determine the value on which the property in question might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The assessee has utterly failed to lead any evidence even at this stage on the basis of which the assessing officers finding could either be reversed or modified. The appeal, therefore, fails on this issue.

6. In the result, the appal partially succeeds and is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.

Appeal partly allowed.