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, RAWALPINDI VS Respondent: NOMAN JAN ERKIN
1980 P T D 361
1980 P T D 361
[Lahore High Court]
Before Shameem Hussain Qadri and Gul Muhammad Khan, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, RAWALPINDI
Versus
NOMAN JAN ERKIN
T. R. No. 110 of 1971 (P. C. R. No. 143 of 1971), decided on 4th March 1977.
Gift Tax Act (XIV of 1963)‑
‑‑ S. 27‑Reference to High Court‑Market value of property‑Tribunal reducing market value of gift property assessed by Gift Tax Officer -Held, finding of Tribunal does not give rise to question of law.
Muhammad Afzal Lone for Applicant.
Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th March 1977.
JUDGMENT
SHAMEEM HUSSAIN QADRI, J. ‑ By this petition under section 26 of the Gift Tax Act the Commissioner of Gif t Tax, Rawalpindi, has prayed for answer to the following question:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in modifying the value of the property in question?"
2. The asp in this case made a gift of bungalow known as Erkin Palace is Murree Road, Rawalpindi, in favour of his wife Mst. sultana Begum and her three children. The Gift Tax Officer assessed the market value the property at Rs.5,40,000 by this order dated 13th Jane 1970. The assessee went in appeal before tae Appellate Assistant Commissioner who vide his order who wide his dated 22nd October 1970 dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal by the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Peshawar Bench, by order dated 5th April 1371, accepted the appeal and calculated the market value of the property at Rs. 4,20,000.
3. The fixation of the market value by the Tribunal is a pure question of fact and our answer to the question raised has to be in toe affirmative. An objection was also raised by learned counsel for the respondent the petition is barred by six days. Irrespective of this objection even on merits the petitioner has no case. The petition fails. The respondent shall be entitled to costs.
Question answered in the affirmative.