Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE 'A" EASTERN REGION, LAHORE VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RAIZ, Proprietor Messrs Riaz Cloth Merchants, Lahore
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Sair Ali, Sh. Azmat Saeed Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE 'A" EASTERN REGION,
LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD RAIZ, Proprietor Messrs Riaz Cloth Merchants, Lahore Case No.: I.T.A. No. 551 of 1999 Date of Judgment:2005-03-14 Reported As: 2005 PTD 2281 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER (5) After hearing the parties we are inclined to agree with the learned A.R. For the assessee. The value declared by the assessee was evidenced by registered deed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was bound to accept the same in normal course. Since the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence to the contrary, we direct that the declared value of the shop should be accepted. However, on the issue of addition under section 13(1)(aa) estimation of sales and G.P. Rate the case stands set aside as directed by the First Appellate Authority. Resultantly the addition made under section 13(1)(d) is deleted and rest of the relief is refused." 2. The Revenue through the present appeal claims consideration by this Court of the following questions:-- "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in interfering in the first appellate order remanding the case to be decided afresh on merits and in deleting the addition made under section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979." 3. The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal infact upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority on the issue of additions under section 13(1)(aa) (estimations of sales and G.P. Rate). 4. However, the additions made under section 13(1)(d) were IA deleted by the learned Tribunal in view of the observations that "the declared value evidenced by a registered deed should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer." This observation does not require any interference and no valid ground has been shown to do so. In view thereof, the question as proposed does not deserve consideration. 5. This appeal is disposed of as above.