1995 PTD 1232

I.TA. NO. 5661/LB OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 26TH SEPTEMBER, 1994. Versus I.TA. NO. 5661/LB OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 26TH SEPTEMBER, 1994.

Citation1995 PTD 1232

CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

ORDER

1. CH. IRSHAD AHMAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) : --The assessee, an individual, earns income from business, house property and salary. The wealth statement filed by the assessee alongwith the return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 showed that he had, during the period relevant to the aforesaid assessment year, purchased two plots of land; one for Rs.1,40,000 and the other for Rs.1,08,275. The assessing officer raised his eye-brows on the declared price of the plots and after making certain inquiries estimated them of the value of Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.3,30,000 respectively, and the difference of the estimated value and of the declared value was added to the income of the assessee. as deemed income under section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) reduced the value of the plots of Rs.3,00,000 and Rs.2,50,000 respectively. Through this further appeal, the assessee has objected to the orders of the tax authorities on the ground that estimation of values of the plots was not based on any material.

2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate in support of and Mr. Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R. in opposition of the appeal.

3. So far as the legal position is concerned it is agreed that Income Tax Officer can estimate the value of any asset if he finds that the assessee has acquired the same by expending more money than what is written in his books.

4. Here the question is whether the estimation of assets made by the tax authorities is based on any objective criteria. The assessing officer has noted that he had made inquiries from the property dealers of Lahore as well as Karachi to ascertain the market value. The orders do not indicate what was the basis of the information that the real value of the plot was that which was estimated by the assessing officer or the C.I.T.(A). No instance has been quoted showing that the value of the plots acquired by the assessee were of the value estimated by the said authorities. Since the estimation of value made by the tax authorities is not supported by any material evidence, we are inclined to accept this appeal and to direct that the value of the plots declared by the assessee may be accepted.

5. M.B.A./105/T Appeal allowed.