Messrs JALIL CENTRE, ABDALI ROAD, MULTAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-
This matter arises from petitions directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed appeals filed under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, thereby maintaining the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's determination. The core legal question concerned the proper assessment status—whether individual or as an Association of Persons (A.O.P.)—of a commercial property (Jalil Centre, Multan) owned by multiple family members following a gift by the original owner. The Supreme Court held that the determination of an assessee's status as an A.O.P. based on physical indivisibility, shared utilities, and joint management of the property is a pure question of fact concurrently resolved by the fact-finding tribunals and the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, appellate interference by the High Court is strictly restricted to questions of law, and concurrent findings on factual controversies cannot be disturbed in the absence of a substantial legal question.
- Whether the determination of an assessee's status as an Association of Persons (A.O.P.) constitutes a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 in the absence of a substantial question of law?
- Whether a jointly held property with shared utilities and common management can be assessed under the status of an Association of Persons?
- Section 27, Wealth Tax Act, 1963
- Section 16(3), Wealth Tax Act, 1963
- Section 17, Wealth Tax Act, 1963
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against a single judgment, dated 14-3-2002 whereby a learned Division of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissed three appeals filed by the petitioners under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), maintaining the earlier determination, dated 31-10-2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2. ' Briefly narrated facts of the case are that the petitioners submitted Wealth Tax Returns for the assessm ent years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 in respect of their property known as Jalil Centre, Abdali Road, Multan. Their status as an individual was assessed under section 16(3) or the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Wealth Tax, Multan, vide his order dated 7-2- 1995. However, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth Tax, Range-IV, Multan, in exercise of his powers under section 17(b) of the Act, modified the above Order and treated the aforesaid property to be assessed in the state of A.O.P. (Association of Persons).
3. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the petitioners under section 17 of the Act.
4. ' The petitioners assailed the aforesaid determination of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax (Appeals), Multan, who accepted their appeals vide his order, dated 2-3-1999 directing the Assessing Officer to assign the valuation of the above property in individual hands of the owners. The respondent-department filed three appeals before the Tribunals which were accepted by means of an order, dated 31-10-2000 restoring the status of the assessee as that of an A.O.P. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, filed three appeals before the Lahore -High Court at Multan, which have been dismissed by a learned Division Bench through a consolidated judgment, dated 14-3-2002, impugned herein.
5. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
6. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. The dispute in this case pertains qua determination of the status of above property. The assessee claims itself to be an individual while the department has held it as an A.O.P. And this question of fact has been approved by the Tribunal. We have also noticed from the impugned judgment that the property in question is indivisible having only one staircase. The site plan of the property in dispute was got approved by Khizar Abbas Gardezi in his own name from the Municipal Corporation, Multan, on 12- 11-1990 in individual capacity. After raising construction on it he made a gift to his wife, minor daughter and three sons. It is worth mentioning here that the land underneath the Plaza still stands in the name of Khizar Abbas Gardezi. The factual controversy, whether the disputed property could be treated in individual capacity or it had got the status of A.O.P., had been determined by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal had also made reference to certain other factual aspects of the case so as to reach at the conclusion that the property had acquired the status of A.O.P. After mentioning the aforestated features of the case, the Tribunal had also advanced additional reasons for treating it as A.O.P. Which are in the following terms:- "8 After considering these arguments and perusal of assessment record which further shows that only one electricity meter in the name of Mr. Khizar Abbas Gardezi is installed in the building and commonly owned portion of the property such as one strong room, one manager's room, one kitchen and two toilets are in the occupation and use of various tenants but separate rent agreement in respect of these portions of the property have not been executed. It is also observed that PT-I Form, dated 24-3-1998 which was issued in cancellation of earlier four PT-I Forms cannot be considered as a matter occurring after the assessment years under consideration because original four PT-I Forms were cancelled and hence they are non-existent, on the basis of evidence available on record. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer on the point of status assigned to the assessee as that of an A.O.P.. Is restored in this case in all the years under consideration."
7. The impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in dismissing the appeals of the petitioner is unexceptionable as under section 27 of the Act, interference can only be made on a question of law. The questions formulated by the petitioner in its memo. Of appeal before the High Court were as under:--
(1) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be vitiated being based partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant material, conjectures and surmises?
(2) Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be vitiated on account of its having relied upon assumptions ignoring the material evidence and for relying upon irrelevant material?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to assess the appellant in the status of an A.O.P. Is proper and correct?
8. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the aforesaid questions have got any legal value as the matter is totally a factual controversy.
9. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, these petitions being devoid of any force are dismissed and leave refused.