|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 346
1989 March 18
[STYLIANIDES. J]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
APOSTOLOSIGNATIOU AND ANOTHER,
Applicants,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
Respondents.
(Case No. 145/84)
Judicial control - Taxation Assessment of amount of tax - Interference by Court - Principles applicable - Court does not interfere if the decision was reasonably and properly open to the respondent.
Taxation - Assessment and collection of taxes - The Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws. 1978-1979, sections .23(1) and 20(5) - Commission of income tax entitled to invoke .powers tinder section 23(1), whenever he bona fide forms the view that no assessment was raised or the ax levied is insufficient- The Commissioner is also empowered under section 20(5) to increase the object of the tax of a person, who filed an objection, without resorting to the provisions for additional assessment of section 23.
Taxation-Income Tax-Trading In land, single transaction-Matters that can be taken into consideration in order to determine issue whether transaction constitutes trading in land -The Income Tax Law, section 5 (1)(a) and (h).
The main issue in this case is whether it was reasonably open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to find that the difference between the purchase price and the sale price by applicants of a field in pegia.is subject to income tax.
The applicants, who are husband and wife -acquired a piece of land of an extent of 10 acres in Pegia back in 1973. The applicant husband is an architect. The applicant's wife was at the time an airhostess. She did also acquire pieces of land in another developing at the time area of Cyprus, AgiosAmbrosios. It was established that half the purchase price of the land at Pegia was secured by loan from a bank. The land was sold by applicants at a much higher price than the purchase price they paid In 1979. In the circumstances the respondent treated the difference between the two prices as income from trading. Hence this recourse.
Held, in dismissing the recourse:
1. In cases relating to assessment of income for purposes of taxation the Court does not interfere, if the decision was reasonably and property open to the Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Section 23(1) of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws 1978-79 empowers the Director to raise additional assessments, wherever the original assessment was insufficient. Moreover section 20(5) empowers the Director, in dealing with an objection, to increase the object of the tax, without resorting to additional assessment.
3. The tax in question was levied tinder section 5(1)(a) and (h) of the Income Tax Law (their text appears at page 355), The issue raised in this case concerns the nature of the difference between the two prices and is a question of mixed law and tact. The test is whether the transaction exhibits features, which give it the character of a business deal.
4. A single transaction rarely attracts income tax, but, nevertheless, the transaction must be examined objectively. The character of the land in question, the state of its development and future potential, the income which it yields, the manner of the finance of tile transaction, the business knowledge of the tax payer or of his associates and tile length of the ownership may indicate the commercial nature of a. transaction.
5. The burden of proof is on the applicants.
6. In this case the applicants purchased a barren rocky plot of landabutting the sea-shore and surrounded by hali-land. The land they purchased was not suitable for agricultural, rural or other similar use or exploitation. It yielded no income and there was no prospect of yielding any in the future. It was situated at a locality ready for development. In an area where prices of land were galloping. Half the price was paid from a loan from a bank. The applicant wife had purchased in 1972 other non-income yielding immovables at another place of tourist development area at the other end of Cyprus, namely AgiosAmbrosios. In the light of these facts, the sub judice decision was reasonably open to the respondents.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Cases referred to:
P.G.G. Clift v. Republic and Another (1965) 3 C.L.R. 285,
Christides v. Republic (1966) 3 C.L.R. 732,
Makrides v. Republic (Minister of Finance) (1967) 3 C.L.R. 147,
Georghiades v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 659,
Mangli v. Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 52,
HadjiEraclis and Another v. Republic (1984) 3 C.L.R. 604,
Republic and Another v. Frangos (1965) 3 C.L.R. 641,
Solomonides v. Republic (Commissioner of Income Tax) (1968) 3 C.L.R. 105,
Constanne Estates v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 859,
Ioannides v. Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 1801,
Savvas M. Agrotis Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Limassol Land Investments Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 22 C.L.R. 27,
Jones v. Leeming 99 K.B. 318,
In Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow and Another [1955] 3 All E.R. 48,
Californian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. Harris, 5 Tax Cases, p. 159,
Droussiotis v. Republic (Minister of Finance and Another) (1967) 3 C.L.R. 15,
Johnston (Inspector of Taxes) v. Heath [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1567,
Greenberg v. IRC [1971] 3 All E.R. 136 (H.L.),
River Estates Ltd. v. Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 2575,
loannides v. Republic (Council of Ministers and Others) (1972) 3 C.L.R. 318,
Mikellidou v. Republic (1981) 3 C.L.R. 461.
Recourse.
Recourse against the validity of the decision of the respondent on the objection for the income tax assessments for the years 1979-1982.
T. Papadopoulos, for the Applicants.
A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
Cur.adv. vult.
STYLIANIDES, J. read the following judgment. By this recourse the applicants challenge the validity of the decision of the respondent - Commissioner of Income Tax - on the objection for the income tax assessments for the years 1979-1982.
Applicants complain that the Respondent erroneouslytreated as part of their relevant taxable income the difference between the purchase price and the sale price of a piece of land at Peyia - Paphos.
The salient facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicants are husband and wife. Applicant No. 1 - the husband - of Paphos, during the material times, derived income from his profession as draughtsman. He failed to submit his returns of income for the years 1977 - 1981. The Respondent raised assessments from time to time, in accordance with section 13(3) of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law, 1978 (Law No. 4/78), as amended by taws 23/78 and 41/19, which provides:-
"(3) Where a person has not delivered a return and the Director is of the opinion that such person is liable to pay tax imposed on the object of the tax he may, according to the best of his judgment, determine the object of the tax and assess such person according to the nature and extent 'of his business."
The husband objected to the assessment raised upon him for the year of assessment 1981. In order to enable the Respondent to examine his objection, a Statement of Assets and Liabilities, as at 1st January, 1979 and 31st December 1981,prepared by his accountant - Mr. E. Neophytou, signed at the end thereof by the husband, was submitted on 26th November, 1982.
In the Statement we read:-
"Ακίνητη περιουσία 1/2 μετά της συζύγου 10 σκάλες χωράφι εις Πέγεια αρ. εγγρ. 41048 εις τιμή κτήσεως 1973 ΛΚ 16,700.-."
In the letter of the accountant, to which the Statements were attached, it was stated that the field at Peyia was sold to Armonia Estates Ltd., in 1979 at £95,000.-, and that until 31st December, 1981, Armonia Estates Ltd owed to his client £31,278.
Upon inquiry it was revealed that the said field wastransferred in the name of the: applicants by purchase on 15th. October, 1973. The purchase price declared at the D.L.O was £8,000.- and the transfer fees. paid £400-.
It was established that in 1972 the wife purchased. atAyiosAmvrosios, Kyrenia district, a field of one donum in extent, Registration No 2998, at £728.- and a house at the same village, Registration No 2999 at £312.-
In 1973 immovable situate in Anavargos - her native village were transferred by gift in her name. After the sale of the field at Peyia, both the husband and the wife purchased immovables at Paphos, Anavargos and Peyia.
During meetings with the Officer examining his income tax liability the husband said and reiterated that the field at Peyia was purchased in 1973 after his marriage at £8,000.- The purchase price was paid from the savings of his wife and £4,000. -from a loan contracted with.the Bank of Cyprus, which was paid off from remittances from abroad, where he was working in 1974 and 1975.
After taking into consideration all the facts and reasons pertaining to the purchase and sale of the said plot of land at Peyia, the Respondent decided that the transaction embarked upon by applicants was an adventure in the nature of trade and the profit realized was taxable. He communicated his such decision to applicants by a reasoned letter of 1st July, 1983 and sent to them relevant Notices of Assessments.
The applicants disputed the assessments made upon them and by notice of objection in writing, submitted by their new accountants Savvides, Siakallis and Savvides on 29th August, 1983, applied for review and revision of the assessments. The ground of their objection was that the gain from the sale of the field under Registration No. 41048 at Peyia should not be considered as taxable. The object of the purchase of the field was not resale but development and relevant steps were taken to that end.
As no agreement was reached, the Respondent proceeded under section 20(5) and determined the amount of the object ofthe tax, on the basis of the evidence available to him, and notified the applicants accordingly by letter dated 10th January, 1984. Relevant notices of tax payable were sent. The material part of the letter of 10th January, 1984, reads:-
"Αναφέρομαι στις ενστάσεις που έχετε υποβάλει για τις φορολογίες του εισοδήματος σας για τα φορολογικά έτη 1979 ως 1982 και σας πληροφορώ ως ακολούθως:
α) Η υπόθεση σας έχει εξετασθεί σε βάθος και έκταση κατά τις διάφορες συνεντεύξεις που είχε ο σύζυγος σας και ο ελεγκτής σας με τον Αρχιφοροθέτη Πάφου.
β) Μετά από αναθεώρηση της όλης υποθέσεως σας, έχω αποφασίσει με βάση τα στοιχεία που έχω στη διάθεση μου ότι το κέρδος που έχει προκύψει από την πώληση του μεριδίου σας στο χωράφι με αριθμό εγγραφής 41048 στη Πέγεια αποτελεί εισόδημα που υπόκειται στις πρόνοιες των Άρθρων 5(1 )(α) ή 5(1)(η) των Περί Φορολογίας του Εισοδήματος Νόμων του 1961 ως 1983. Οι κυριώτεροι λόγοι για την απόφαση μου αυτή αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 2 της επιστολής μου ημερομηνίας 1 Ιουλίου 1983 η οποία έχει αποσταλεί στο σύζυγο σας. Ο υπολογισμός του κέρδους αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 3 της επιστολής εκείνης."
This determination, therefore, should be read together with the letter of 1st July, 1983. (See Appendices A and B to the recourse.).
The assessments were raised under sections 5(1) and (6) of the Income Tax Laws 1961 - 1963 and sections 3, 13(3) and 23(1) of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws 1978 - 1979.
The applicants being aggrieved by the assessment made upon them filed this recourse.
The grounds on which it is based are:-
1. The Respondent was precluded from increasing the taxable income under section 23 or 20(5) of the
Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws 1978 - 1979.
2. The Respondent erroneously interpreted and applied the Income Tax Legislation relating to the nature and character of the profit realized from the disposition of their immovable.
3. The Respondent laboured under misconception of fact and/or failed to carry out due inquiry into the conditions pertaining to taxability of applicants and the sale of the land.
4. The sub judice decision is not duly reasoned; it is arbitrary and was taken in abuse and excess of power.
It is well settled that, in a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution against an assessment, the Court will not interfere with the sub judice decision of the Income Tax Authorities if it is of the opinion that such decision was reasonably and properly open to them on the basis of the correct facts and in the light of the correct application of the relevant legislation and principles of law - (see P.G.G. Clift and The Republic of Cyprus through (a) The Minister of Finance, (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 3 C.LR. 285; Christos Christides and The Republic of Cyprus, through The Director of Inland Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance (1966) 3 C.L.R. 732; RaIlisMakrides v. Republic (Minister of Finance) (1967) 3 C.L.R. 147; Georghiades v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 659; Mangli v. Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 52; HadjiEraclis and Another v. Republic (1984) 3 C.L.R. 604).
The applicant - husband failed to submit returns of income for the years 1977- 1981 and assessments were originally raised by the Respondent under section 13(3) of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws, 1978 - 1979. He objected.
Under section 23(1) the Respondent has power to raise new or additional assessments when it appears to him that a taxpayer was not assessed at all or was under-assessed. The power conferred under section 23 may be exercised within six years after the end of the year of assessment. Under paragraph 2 ofsection 23, where any person has been guilty of fraud or wilful default; the time-limit of the six years mentioned in sub-section (1). is increased to twelve years.
The only limitation to the exercise of these powers is the time to which I have referred.
The Respondent is entitled to invoke his powers under section 23(1), whenever he, bona fide, forms the view that no assessment was raised or the tax levied is insufficient - The Republic of Cyprus, through 1. The Attorney-General, 2.The Ministry of Finance through The Director of the Department of Inland Revenue, and loannisChr. Frangos (1965).3 C.L.R. 641; Dr. Solon Solomonides v. Republic (Commissioner of Income Tax) (1968); 3 C.L.R. 105; Constanne Estates v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 859; loannides v. Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 1801).
The Statement of Assets and Liabilities submitted in November, 1982, served as a springboard to the inquiry that culminated in the assessments.
It is noteworthy that under section 20(5) of Law 4/78, the Director is empowered to determine the amount of the object of the tax of the person objecting at an amount higher than the taxation under objection.
The proviso to sub-section (5) of section 20, read in the context of the Law as a whole, empowers the Director to increase the amount of the object of the tax, when there is an objection, without resorting to the provisions of section 23 for additional assessment.
The aforesaid dispose of the first ground.
The main question that falls to be decided is whether the gains made out of the difference between the cost of acquisition and the net proceeds of the sale of the field at Peyia, was rightly treated as part of the taxable income of the applicants, as constituting gains or profits from trading in land within the meaning of sub-section (1)(a) or (h) of section 5.
Section 5(1)(a) and (h) of the Income Tax Law reads as follows:-
"5.- (1) Tax shall, subject to the provisions of this Law, be payable at the rate or rates specified hereafter for each year of assessment upon the income of any person accruing in, derived from, or received in the Republic in respect of -
(a) gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation, for whatever period of time such trade, business profession or vocation may have been carried on or exercised;"
"(h)any annual profit or gain not falling under any of the foregoing paragraphs."
The expression "trade" shall include every manufacture or adventure or concern in the nature of trade - (section 5(2)(f)).
The issue raised is one of mixed question of law and fact, which has to be decided in the light of the particular circumstances of each case - .(Savvas M. Agrotis Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax and Limassol Land Investments Ltd. v.The Commissioner of Income Tax 22 C.L.R.,27, at p. 30; jones v. Leeming 99 K.B. 318).
In Edwards (inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow and Another [1955] 3 All E.R., 48, Viscount Simonds said at p. 54:-
"To say that a transaction is, or is not, an adventure in the nature of trade is to say that it has or has not, the characteristics which distinguish such an adventure. But it is a question of law, not of fact, what are those characteristics, or in other words, what the statutory language means. It follows that the inference can only be regarded as an inference of fact if it is assumed that the tribunal which makes it is rightly directed in law what the characteristics are and that, I think, is the assumption that is made. It is a question of law what is murder; a jury finding as a fact that murder has been committed has been directed on the law and acts under that direction".
Each case must be considered according to its own facts. The question to be determined being - is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realizing a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit making - (Californian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. Harris, 5 Tax Cases, p. 159; Yiannakis S. Droussiotis v. Republic (Minister of Finance and Another) (1967) 3 C.L.R. 15; RaIlisMakrides v. Republic (Minister of Finance); Georghiades v. Republic; HadjiEraclis and Another v. Republic (supra).).
The test is whether the transaction exhibits features which give it the character of a business deal. Though a single transaction rarely attracts income tax, the transaction must be examined objectively.
In Pinson's Revenue Law, 6th edition, p. 24, we read:- "It is in general more easy to hold that a single transaction entered into by an individual in the line of his own trade (although not part and parcel of his ordinary business) is an adventure in the nature of trade than to hold that a transaction entered into by an individual outside the line of his own trade or occupation is an adventure in the nature of trade."
The saying in Agrotis case by Hallinan, C.J. about the part that real estates played in the economic life of Cyprus and that almost the main and sole field for investment was immovable property, has after the lapse of over thirty years become a half truth. In view of the development of the country, especially in tourist areas, and the galloping of prices of land, land with developing prospects has become a commodity of trade - Speculation in land has become an incident of common occurrence.
In deciding whether a certain activity constitutes trading, the following are relevant:-
The character of the land purchased, its state of development and future potential, as well as the income it yields at the time of purchase or is likely to yield in future. Where the land is undeveloped and the purchaser cannot be deemed to look to its income, present or future, as an incentive for entering into thetransaction, but to its future potential as an asset, one may discern an intention to trade with it, speculating thereby in the realization of profit from a sale in future. The manner of the finance of the transaction. An investor who has funds immediately available may be assumed to substitute a piece of land for an enhanced bank account as a more durable asset. This cannot be said to be the case where the element of speculation in the transaction is present. The business knowledge of the taxpayer or of his associates may indicate the commercial nature of a transaction. The length of the ownership is, also, a factor in some cases. Intention to trade may be gathered from a great variety of facts and circumstances. The frequency of a transaction or other transactions are an indication of trading, but a sole transaction is not always excluded from the doing a trading activity or adventure in the nature of trade. If other criteria are satisfied and it is reasonably open to find that a sole transaction is not an investment, but a business deal, a trading activity or adventure in the nature of trade, the fact that it is a single transaction is irrelevant, (Georghiades v. Republic (supra); Johnston (Inspector of Taxes) v. Heath [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1567; Greenberg v. IRC [1971] 3 All E.R. 136 (H.L.); Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow and Another [1955] 3 All E.R. 48; River Estates Ltd. v. Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 2575).
The initial burden of proof is on the applicants in order to satisfy the Court that the sub judice decision is faulty.
The grounds on which the decision of the Respondent was based are set out in the letter of 1st July, 1983, the relevant part of which reads as follows:-
"2. Σας πληροφορώ ότι μετά από προσεκτική μελέτη του θέματος που έχει προκύψει με την πώληση του χωραφιού αρ. εγγραφής 41048 στη Πέγεια και αφού έλαβα υπ' όψη όλες τις παραστάσεις και επεξηγήσεις που έχετε κάμει και όλα τα περιστατικά της υποθέσεως σας έχω αποφασίσει ότι το κέρδος που έχει προκύψει από την πώληση του χωραφιού σας υπόκειται σε φορολογία με βάση τα άρθρα 5(1)(α) ή 5(1)(η) των Περί φορολογίας του Εισοδήματος Νόμων του 1961 ως 1981. Οι κυριώτεροι λόγοι στους οποίους έχω βασίσει την απόφαση μου είναι οι ακόλουθοι:-
α) Αφορά υπόθεση αγοράς και πωλήσεως.
β) Ο κυριώτερος σκοπός της αγοράς ήταν η μεταπώληση και πραγματοποίηση κέρδους.
γ) Το χωράφι δεν έχει αγορασθεί για σκοπούς παραγωγής εισοδήματος ή, για τη χρησιμοποίηση του ως πάγιο ενεργητικό οποιασδήποτε επιχειρήσεως και δεν έχει εν πάση περιπτώσει χρησιμοποιηθεί για οποιοδήποτε σκοπό.
δ) Το χωράφι βρίσκεται σε περιοχή που παρατηρείτο γρήγορη αύξηση στις αγοραίες αξίες και υπήρχε ζήτηση από πολλούς αγοραστές και από πρόσωπα που ενδιαφέροντο για ανάπτυξη, γης, ιδιαίτερα λόγω της γνώσεως ότι η περιοχή ήταν σε τουριστική ζώνη, και το γεγονός ότι βρισκόταν στη παραλία η αύξηση της αξίας του μέχρι της μεταπωλήσεως του θα ήτο πολύ μεγάλη.
ε) Το χωράφι αγοράσθηκε με δάνειο και δεν μπορώ να αποδεχθώ τον ισχυρισμό σας ότι είχε αγορασθεί για επένδυση των χρημάτων που είχατε στη διάθεση σας που εν πάση περιπτώσει δεν αποτελεί αποφασιστικό παράγοντα για την λήψη αποφάσεως αν το κέρδος υπόκειται σε φορολογία ή όχι.
ζ) Εσείς ή μέσω της συζύγου σας έχετε αγοράσει και άλλα δύο κτήματα στον Άγιο Αμβρόσιο Κυρηνείας κατά το έτος 1972 που ήταν πάλι Τουριστική περιοχή ή περιοχή που παρατηρείτο γρήγορη ανάπτυξη και πραγματοποίηση πολλού κέρδους από την αγοραπωλησία γης.
η) Το επάγγελμα σας ως τεχνικού σε γραφεία αρχιτεκτόνων, μηχανικών είναι συναφές με το επάγγελμα προσώπων που ασχολούνται με την ανάπτυξη γης και παρέχει μεγάλες ευκαιρίες όσον αφορά γνώσεις: για περιοχές που βρίσκονται υπό ανάπτυξη γης ή που πρόκειται να έχουν προοπτικές συντόμου αναπτύξεως.
θ) Η τοποθέτηση των χρημάτων που έχετε εισπράξει από την πώληση του χωραφιού έγινε για αγορά γης για σκοπούς αναπτύξεως και πωλήσεως για πραγματοποίηση κέρδους.
3. Το κέρδος που έχει προκύψει από την πώληση του χωραφιού στην Πέγεια έχει υπολογισθεί ως εξής:-
Τιμή πωλήσεως στις 1.12.79 £95,000
Μείον: Τιμή αγοράς και
Μεταβιβαστικά £8,400
Προμήθειες πληρωθείσες
και δικηγορικά 1,700 10,100
Κέρδος £84,900
- - - - - - -
With regard to misconception of fact it is common place that failure to make a due inquiry causing lack of knowledge of material facts amounts to misconception of fact - (Constantinosloannides v Republic Council of Ministers and Others (1972) 3 C.L.R.318; Mikellidou v. Republic (1981) 3 C.LR. 461).A misconception 'as to facts may consist of either the taking into account of non-existing facts or the non-taking into account of existing facts- (Christos Christides and The Republic of cyprus, through The Director of inland Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance (supra); The Judicial Control of Discretionary Powers by Economou, 1965, p.243).
The following particulars of the alleged misconception of fact were given in the address of counsel:-
(a) Applicant 2 purchased the field in question by written contract on 4th October, 1972. The contract was filed in the Declaration of Sale 2647/73. Applicant 2 purchased it as an investment as part of her "dower" in contemplation of her marriage. This applicant was born and brought up at Anavargos - Paphos. She was living at Nicosia, she being employed as air hostess.
b) Applicant 1, who comes from Simou - Paphos, was in England. He engaged to applicant 2 on 20th May, 1972. Their marriage was celebrated on 3rd September,1973 The transfer was effected later on in 1973.
(c) They intended to develop the land for tourist business and on 19th February, 1977, a letter was addressed to the District Officer of Paphos, complaining for the non- inclusion of it in the tourist zone.
(d) The payment of the purchase price was made: £2,500.-on signing of the contract and for the contribution of the applicant - husband £4,000.- loan contracted with the Bank of Cyprus.
The Respondent carried out inquiry. The applicant - husband was interviewed a number of times. He gave the information. The applicants in forms filed and signed stated that they purchased the property in 1973 - (see form I.R. 302 and p. 3 of an undated form about the properties sold from 1st January, 1972, to 31st August, 1981).
The objection was determined and the sub judice decision was taken on the basis of the evidence before the Respondent. Any allegations inconsistent or contrary to the evidence available to the Respondent at the material time cannot be considered by this Court. The applicants had ample opportunity to place their aforesaid allegations before the Respondent. The alleged particulars of misconception were facts within their exclusive knowledge. The sub judice decision is not tainted with misconception of fact.
I have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The character of the land purchased - it is a barren, rocky plot of land abutting the seashore and surrounded by hali-land, which was not suitable for any agricultural, rural or other similar use or exploitation - (see, in this respect, the petition to the District Officer, dated 19th February, 1977, signed by the applicant husband) It yielded no income and there was no prospect of yielding any in the future. It was situated, however, at a locality ready for development. In the area the prices were galloping. It is not in any way disputed that half of the purchase price - £4,000.- was paid from aloan obtained from a bank. The applicants' native villages are Anavargos and Simou - Paphos, though at the material time the one was at Nicosia as air hostess and the other an architect who returned from his studies abroad. The applicant - wife in 1972 purchased non-income yieldingimmovables at another place of tourist development, at another end of this Island - AyiosAmvrosios.
The aforesaid, by themselves, would suffice, for a reasonable man to reach the conclusion that the purchase was neither an investment nor a "dower". The application to the District Officer was for the enhancement of the price, as no other step, whatsoever, was taken for the development or for the tourist business alleged. The acts done were: purchase and ultimate sale. The occupation of the air hostess and the architect and the knowledge and experience which one gains in such capacities, is a very relevant factor.
Having given the matter due consideration, in the light of all the material before the Court and the law, as expounded earlier on in this Judgment, I have reached the conclusion that the sub judice decision is not the product of misconception of fact or law; the Respondent carried out due inquiry. The sub judice decision is duly reasoned and it was, in all the circumstances of the case, reasonably open to the Respondent.
The recourse is hereby dismissed. The sub judice decision is confirmed.
I make no order as to costs.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs.