W.T.A. No.740/HQ of 1991-92, decided on 22nd November 1999. Versus W.T.A. No.740/HQ of 1991-92, decided on 22nd November 1999.
ORDER
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑ The Department in this appeal has agitated the order, dated 15‑12‑1991 of the learned A.A.C. of Wealth Tax (A) for reducing the value of share of house property from estimated Rs.21,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000.
2. Facts leading to instant appeals are that the assessee declared value of Bungalow No.139 situated at People Colony Faisalabad measuring 4800 sq. yards at Rs.2,90,000. WTO assessed the value at Rs.42,00,000 and the assessee being owner of the share the value was taken at Rs.21,00,000. On the appeal of the assessee learned A.A.C. of Wealth Tax Appeal has reduced the valuation of share of property to Rs.5,00,000 for the reason that for the assessment year 1987‑88, value assessed was reduced to Rs.3,20,000.
3. Mr. Fahimul Haq, learned representative of the appellant department has contended that the learned CWT(A) has reduced the estimated value ignoring the size, accommodation and location of the property. According to him, the property is located in the posh area and the WTO in view of unprecedented increase in the value of property has taken the G.A.R.V. at 35,000 per month and has calculated the value in accordance with C.B.R directions taking at ten times the annual letting value. He has, therefore, requested to restore the order of the WTO.
4. Mr. Jawaid Zakaria, Advocate, learned representative of the assessee has argued that the WTO has estimated the value on presumption and surmises, without placing on record any parallel cases, or for any base for the estimation. According to him, learned A.A.C. of WT(A) has reduced the estimated value considering the history. He has contended that the remaining half share of the same property has been assessed at Rs.3,20,000 for the assessment year 1989‑90 and for this reason the learned CWT(A) has reduced the estimated value to Rs.5,00,000 for assessment year 1990‑91. According to learned A.R. it is the settled proposition of law that if during the same assessment year, the same quantity of wealth in possession of one‑co‑share is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it will be highly improper to burden a similarly situated to shares with a higher rate of tax. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Indian High Court reported as 1992 PTD 1620. Learned A.R. has also placed before us the assessment order for the assessment year 1989‑90 in the case of co‑shares Mst. Safia Begum and the order of the learned CWT(A), dated 17‑4‑1989 for the assessment year 1987‑88 and order, dated 17‑11‑1992 for the assessment years 1990‑91 and 1991‑92.
5. We have considered the arguments of both the learned representatives. We have also perused the impugned order, the order of the WTO for the assessment year under consideration (1989‑90), the order of WTO in the case of co‑shares (1/2 share) Mst. Safia Begum for assessment year 1989‑90, the order, dated 17‑4‑1989 for the assessment year 1987‑88 and order, dated 16‑11‑1992 for the assessment years 1990‑91 and 1991‑92 of the learned CWT(A). We have observed that the value of share in House No.139‑C People Colony, Faisalabad declared at Rs.2,90,000 has been estimated at Rs.3,20,000 in the case of Mst. Safia Begum in the assessment year 1989‑90 but the remaining share of the same property for the same assessment year (1989‑90) has been estimated at Rs.21,00,000. We are of the view that the incidence of taxation is the ownership of the net wealth according to Wealth Tax Act. If during the same assessment year the same quantity of Wealth in possession of one‑co‑sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co‑sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such actions on the part of the Assessing Authorities are sanctioned, it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in the Constitution. Learned CI.T(A) has rightly reduced the estimated value. We, therefore, find no warrant for interference in the impugned order: Accordingly, appeal by the department is dismissed.
C.M.A./621/Tax Trib. Appeal dismissed.