| Case ID |
2f2ad662-77f7-4530-b889-0d6fbaf8edd8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.TA. No. 7663/KB of 1992-93 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 17, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 17, 1993 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the assessing officer was incorrect in denying the benefit of section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the appellant, as the property in question was owned by multiple persons whose shares were definite and ascertainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the condition for physical divisibility of property is not mandated under the law, as the legislature only requires that the shares of the co-owners are clear and defined. The previous assessments from 1984 to 1987 had recognized the 1/7th shares of the co-owners, hence the inconsistency in the treatment of the appellant's case was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessments in accordance with section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. |
| Summary |
In the case involving the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed the assessment of property income owned by multiple co-owners. The tribunal found that the shares held by the co-owners were definite and ascertainable as per the agreements made among them. The decision highlighted the importance of proper interpretation of legal provisions, emphasizing that physical division of property was not a requisite for tax assessment under section 21. The ruling is significant for co-ownership cases, particularly in clarifying that agreements among co-owners should be respected in tax assessments. The decision also underlined the binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue, reinforcing the need for assessing officers to adhere to established guidelines. This case serves as a precedent for future tax assessments involving co-owned properties, ensuring fair treatment based on clear legal definitions of ownership shares. The ruling is expected to influence similar cases, promoting consistency in the application of tax laws regarding co-owned properties. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI (Judicial Member),
SYED KABIRUL HASAN (Judicial Member),
INAM ELAHI SHEIKH (Accountant Member)
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Farid for Appellant,
Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 92,
1994 PTD 739,
(1994) 69 TAX 59
|
| Other Citations |
Shaikh Abdul Rehman v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 302,
Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust v. ITO 1992 PTD 1,
CIT v. Sieman A.G. (1991) 63 Tax 130 (SC Pak),
Nizamuddin Amiruddin of Lahore (1943) 11 ITR 443,
AIR 1957 AP 619
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
| Sections |
19,
21,
7,
8,
44
|