I.T.A. NO.35/KB OF 1990-91, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 1991. VS I.T.A. NO.35/KB OF 1990-91, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 1991.
1991 P T D (Trib.) 1078
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Farhat Ali Khan, Chairman and Iqbal M. Qureshi, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No.35/KB of 1990-91, decided on 24/09/1991.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S. 59-B---C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989, dated 26-6-1989, paras.1(a)(i), (ii) 3(d)---Scheme for Simplified Procedure for Assessment for the assessment year 1989-90---Case of an existing assessee which was qualified for acceptance under C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989.
From perusal of section 1, clause (a), paras. (i) and (ii) of C.B.R Circular No.7 of 1989 it appears that the case of an existing as assessee is qualified for acceptance under aforesaid Circular No.7 of 1989 if his total income declared is less than Rs.1,00,000 and his last declared total income and last assessed total income was also less than Rs.1,00,000. However, from perusal of clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid Circular, it appears that the expression "the last assessed total income" has been defined to mean assessed total income of the latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90 as stood completed before the date of filing of return of total income for the assessment year 1989-90.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----R. 59-B---C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989, dated 26-6-1989, paras. l(a) & 3(d)-- Scheme for simplified procedure for assessment for the assessment year 1989-90---Conditions to be complied with before return of assessee stood qualified under the Scheme.
(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXX1 of 1979)---
----S. 59-B---C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989, dated 26-6-1989, para.3(d)---Scheme for simplified procedure for assessment for the assessment year 1989-90---`Last assessed total income'---Illustration.
If one reads clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid Circular, it appears that the last assessed total income would be that which is the assessed total income of
(1) an assessment year which is latest to assessment year 1989-90, and
(2) which stood completed before 15th October, 1989; the date of filing of return of income for assessment year 1989-90.
Question evolved as to which was the "last assessed total income" for the purpose of finding out as to whether the declared income of Rs.93,522 inassessment year 1989-90 was qualified to be accepted under aforesaid Circular No.7?
As far as assessment year 1984-85 was concerned, it was surely showing the last assessed and declared total income at an amount lesser than Rs.1,00,000 and its assessment order was latest in point of time also. However, it would not help simply because it was not the latest assessment year, the assessment order of which stood completed before 15th October, 1989. It therefore, stood excluded.
As for the assessment year 1985-86 although it had shown the last declared total income at Rs.80,000 which was less than Rs.1,00,000, but, even though it was last in point of time and its assessment order had also been completed before 15th October, 1989 yet it could not be called the latest assessment year in view of the definition of the "last assessed total income" as contained in clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid circular simply because its total income stood at more than Rs.1,00,000. It, therefore, also was to be excluded for our purpose. As for the assessment year 1986-87, its declared and assessed total income was more than Rs.1,00,000 and although its assessment order had been completed on 10th September, 1989 yet it would neither fall within the definition of latest assessment year nor would qualify to be treated as the case in which the last declared and assessed total income was at less than Rs.1,00,000. As for the assessment year 1987-88, the declared total income was less than Rs.1,00,000 but assessed total income was more than Rs.1,00,000 and the date of assessment order was also prior to 15th October, 1989 but this would again be not called the latest assessment year in spite of ,the fact that date of its assessment order was the last date of assessment after excluding the dates of assessment orders of assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 for the simple reason that in between assessment year 1987-88 and assessment year 1989-90, another assessment year 1988-89 intervened. Thus, the latest assessment year would be the assessment year 1988 89 as it was immediately preceding year of assessment year 1989-90 although its assessment order did not show the last assessed total income. In other words, though the last assessed total income was that of the assessment year 1987-88 being 29th June, 1989 yet the latest assessment year would be assessment year 1988-89 though it would not show the last assessed total income.
This difference could be explained from another angle. The assessment order for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 had been framed before the date of the filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90 namely 15th October, 1989. Thus, if one had to go by the date of assessment order, then the last assessed total income would be that of assessment year 1985-86 as it was the last in point of time with reference to the date of the filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90. However, it would not be the latest assessment year with reference to the assessment year 1989-90. But since the definition of "last assessed total income" referred to "latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90", therefore, it would be essentially and necessarily assessment year 1988-89 as its total income had also been assessed before 15th October, 1989. To put it in other words, although the total assessed income for all the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 had been determined before 15th October, 1989 namely on 19th October, 1989, 10th September, 1989, 29th June, 1989, and 28th January, 1989 yet the latest assessment year would be assessment year 1988-89 despite the fact that the last assessed total income would be that of assessment year 1985-86.
The legislature had used the expression "latest" which represents superlative degree of the adjective "late" in its natural and grammatical meaning. It, therefore, necessarily implies more than two for purposes of comparison. Thus, the expression "latest year" would mean a year which is latest out of several years.
In view of the language used in clause (d) of section 3 of C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989 the last assessed total income was that of assessment year 1988-89. The fact that the assessment order for assessment year 1987-88 was framed under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance did not make any difference for the simple reason that the definition of the "assessment" as contained in subsection (7) of section 2 of the Income Tax Ordinance included re-assessment and additional assessment with all their cognate expressions. Assessment year 1987-88 did not represent the last assessed total income because it was not that of latest assessment year and not because it was determined under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance.
Chitra Cinema v. Income-tax Officer (1968) 68 ITR 877 ref.
(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI or 1979)---
----S. 59-B---C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989, dated 26-6-1989, para.3(d)---Scheme for Simplified Procedure for Assessment year 1989-90---Expressions `latest' and `latest year'---Meaning.---Expression `latest' represents superlative degree of the adjective `late' in its natural and grammatical meaning and it necessarily implies more than two for purposes of comparison---Expression `latest year' would mean a year which is latest out of several years.
Chitra Cinema v. Income-tax Officer (1968) 68ITR 877 ref.
Salman Pasha for Appellant.
Ashrafuddin Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th September 1991.
ORDER
FARHAT ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---The fate of this appeal depends on the difference in connotation between the word "last" and "latest". In Circular No.7 of 1989, C.B.R. have used both the words in section 1(a)(ii) which reads as under:--
"1. Scope of the Scheme.--A return filed by an existing assessee or a new assessee, being an individual, an unregistered firm shall--------------------qualify under Simplified Procedure of Assessment if it fulfils the following conditions, namely:
(a) In the case of an existing assessee:--
(i) The total income declared is less than Rs.,1,00,000 and
(ii) The last declared total income and the last assessed total income was less than Rs.1,00,000.
And in section 3(d) which reads as under:
"3. Definitions and explanation.--For the purpose of the Scheme of Simplified Procedure for Assessment for the assessment year 1989-90-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
(d) "Last assessed total income" means assessed total income of the latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90 as stood completed before the date of filing of return of total income for the assessment year 1989-90.
2. From perusal of section 1, clause (a), paras. (i) and (ii), it appears that the case of an existing assessee is qualified for acceptance under aforesaid Circular No.7 of 1989 if his total income declared is less than Rs.1,00,000 and his last declared total income and last assessed total income was also less than Rs.1,00,000. However, from perusal of clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid Circular, it appears that the expression "the last assessed total income" has been defined to mean assessed total income of the latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90 as stood completed before the date of filing of return of total income for the assessment year 1989-90.
3. From perusal of record, it appears that the assessee filed his return under aforesaid Circular declaring his income at Rs.93,522 before 15th October, 1989 which was the last dale for filing returns relating to assessment year 1989-90 and on 23rd April, 1990, the Income Tax Officer accepted it. However, subsequently, the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Range discovered that since the assessed income for assessment year 1987-88 stood at Rs.2,26,260, which in his opinion, was the last assessed total income having been assessed on 21st June, 1989, he issued notice under section 66(A) of the Income Tax Ordinance calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment order be not cancelled. It also appears that after considering the explanation of the assessee, the learned I.A.C. cancelled the assessment order by his order dated 21st August, 1990 and thus the assessee has come up in appeal before us to challenge the validity of the order recorded by learned I.A.C.
4. Mr. Salman Pasha, the learned counselfor the assessee, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, argues that the latest assessed total income on 28th January; 1989 stood at Rs.62,622, hence the return was not only qualified under aforesaid Circular but was also rightly accepted by the assessing officer. Mr. Ashrafuddin Bhatti, the learned D.R., on the other hand, supports the impugned order with the contention that since the last assessed total income was that of assessment year 1987-88 having being assessed on 26th June, 1989, the learned I.A.C. quite correctly cancelled the assessment order. Thus, we have been called upon to resolve this controversy by interpreting the expression "the last declared total income" and the expression "the latest assessment year".
4-A. However, before entering into the controversy we would like to start with the conditions which an existing assessee had to comply with before his return stood qualified for acceptance under aforesaid Circular in assessment year 1989-90. From perusal of clause (a) of section 1 and clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid Circular, the following conditions emerge out:--
(1) His declared total income for assessment year 1989-90 should be less than Rs.1,00,000 and
(2) His last declared total income and the last assessed total income also should have been less than Rs.1,00,000.
5. Mr. Salman Pasha claims that both these conditions were stood complied with, hence the Income Tax Officer quite rightly accepted the return for the simple reason that the declared income stood at Rs.93,522 for assessment year 1989-90 and the last declared and the last assessed total income stood at Rs.62,622 relating to assessment year 1988-89. Mr. Ashrafuddin Bhatti, the learned D.R., however, submits that though the declared income was less than Rs.1,00,000, but although the last declared total income stood at Rs.26,250 yet the last assessed income stood at Rs.2,26,260 in assessment year 1987-88. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to interpret the difference between the words "last" and "latest".
6. Now if we read clause (d) of section 3 of aforesaid Circular, it appears that the last assessed total income would be that which is the assessed total income of
(1) an assessment year which is latest to assessment year 1989-90, and
(2) which stood completed before 15th October, 1989; the date of filing of return of income for assessment year 1989-90.
7. However, the facts as discussed above reveal that both assessment orders for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-8y stood completed before 15th October, 1989 which was the last date for filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90. The question, therefore, is as to which is the latest assessment year for the purposes of finding out the last assessed total income. Mr. Ashrafuddin Bhatti, the learned D.R., answers this question with reference to 29th June, 1989 on which the assessment order for assessment year 1987-88 stood completed. Mr. Salman Pasha, however, answers this question by laying emphasis on assessment year 1988-89 as it immediately precedes assessment year 1989-90 though the assessment order was framed on 28th January, 1989. In other words, Mr. Ashrafuddin Bhatti has laid emphasis on the word "last" whereas Mr. Salman Pasha is highlighting the word "latest". We would, however, like to answer this question with reference to and in context of various Self Assessment-Schemes and various provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance and Repealed Income Tax Act.
8. Starting with the Repealed Income Tax Act, we find that section 18(A) thereof laid down the provisions about advance payment of tax by an assessee. If he was an existing assessee, he had to pay advance tax on the basis of income included in his total income of the "latest. previous year" in respect of which he has been assessed under section 23 or where no assessment under section 23 had been made under section 23(b), as the case may be. In India, the Repealed Income Tax Act was substituted by Income Tax Act of 1961 and section 18(a) was replaced by various sections. For purposes of our discussion, clause(b) of section 1 to section 209 of Indian Income Tax Act lays down that the advance tax to be calculated on the basis of total income of "the latest previous year in respect of which the assessee has been assessed by way of regular assessment". Similarly in Pakistan section 53 lays down that the advance tax shall be calculated on the basis of "the latest assessment year in respect of which the tax payable by him his been determined under section 59, 59(a), 00, 62, 63 or 65". Thus, use of the word "latest" in the Self-Assessment Scheme for assessment year 1989-90 is not something new. In fact, both expressions "last" and "latest" have been used in earlier Self-Assessment Schemes also.
9. Now, starting with Self-Assessment Scheme for assessment year 1979-80, we find that Circular No.3 of 1979 laid down that those returns which declared income 10% higher than that income which was last assessed, were qualified to be accepted under it. However, it was specifically mentioned that if several assessments were found pending for more than one year, the upward revision shall be made only with reference to the income assessed for the "latest assessment year". Thus, in this Scheme, both the words "last" and "latest" have been used. The word "last" is also an adjective but the word "latest" is the adjective of superlative degree. In other words, the adjective "last" refers to only one assessment year which is not followed by any other assessment year. Thus, the adjective "last" qualifies only one assessment year, the assessment of which has been completed and no assessment order has been made thereafter. On the other hand, the adjective "latest" indicates several assessment years out of which the latest assessment year is the last in point of time as against several other assessment years. Thus, it is clear that every latest assessment year may be the last assessment year but every last assessment year may not necessarily be the latest assessment year. However, when we talk of last assessment vicar, we confine ourselves to that year which is the last assessment year and have not to refer to other assessment years. But when we talk of latest assessment year, we have necessarily to refer to other assessment years in order to find out the latest assessment years. In our judgment, this difference has arisen because of the use of two adjectives of different degrees. We would revert to this discussion subsequently.
10. In assessment year 1980-81, we find that in the relevant Self Assessment Scheme inter alia, a return which is higher by 20%. than the highest income of any of 3 immediately preceding years is excluded from detailed scrutiny. Similarly, in assessment year 19,81-82, inter alia. a return which is higher by 207,. or more as against the average of the assessed income of 3 preceding years, is qualified to be immune from scrutiny. Likewise, under assessment year 1982-81, inter alia, a return declaring, income higher by 20% as against the average of assessed income of 3 preceding years claims immunity However, in this Self-Assessment Scheme, it has been further clarified that in a case where assessments for immediately preceding year or years are pending, average of assessed income shall be taken or comparison of current year's income shall be made with the income of the latest l years where assessments stood completed at the time of filing of the return. In order to clarify the Self-Assessment Scheme of this year, Circular No.11 of 1982 was issued with various examples and from their perusal, it also appears that the use of the word "latest" indicates several assessment years.
11. In Self-Assessment Scheme for assessment year 1983-84, inter alia, the declared income should be more by certain percentage as against the average of assessed income of preceding 3 years. Here again it was clarified under Note 5 that in a case where assessments for the immediately preceding year or years were pending, average of assessed income shall be taken or comparison of current year's income shall be made with the income of the latest 3 years where assessments stood completed at the time of filing of the return. The Note also explains the difference between the use of adjective "last" and the superlative adjective "latest". In assessment year 1985-86, clause(d) of Note 3 of earlier assessment year was repeated as clause(d) of Note 4. Similarly, the same explanation was contained in clause(c) of Note 2 of Self-Assessment Scheme for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. However, Self-Assessment Scheme contained in C.B.R. Circular No.19 of 1988 relating to assessment year 1988-89 explains the concept of last assessed income in following words:--
"Last assessed income.--(i) Where the assessment for the latest assessment year has not been made or if made, the assessment order remains unserved and income declared for 1988-89 does not exceed Rs.99,999 the case shall be covered by Simplified Procedure, However, dispute regarding proper service of Demand Notice shall not entitle an assessee to avail the benefit of Simplified Procedure.
(ii) Where the income year relevant to assessment year 1988-89 or 1987-88 is of more or less than 12 months, no proration shall be made for the purposes of the monetary limit of Rs.1,00,000. If the assessed income for assessment year 1987-88 as well as the declared income for 1988-89 is less than Rs.1,00,000 the return will qualify for Simplified Procedure."
12. It is thus clear that here, the adjective "last" does not indicate the "latest". Here, in fact the C.B.R. have employed quite clear and unambiguous language to indicate that in assessment year 1988-89 the last assessed income does not necessarily indicate the income assessed in the latest assessment year. Section 5 of this Circular specifically lays down that if the income declared for assessment year 1988-89 is below Rs.1,00,000, the return shall be qualified for Simplified Procedure provided that the assessment for the latest assessment year has either not been made or if made or has not been served if made." Since this Circular is dealing with the assessment year 1988-89, the latest assessment year of all the earlier assessment years ordinarily should be 1987-88. However, if the assessment order has not been framed for that year or if framed has not been served, it would make the return qualified for acceptance in assessment year 1988-89 provided the income declared is below Rs. 100,000 With this discussion, let us now turn to Circular No.7 of 1989, which is the subject-matter of this appeal.
13. Now, when we come to assessment year 1989-90, we find that C.B.R. have made departure from their Circular No.19 of 1988 while introducing the Self-Assessment Scheme in this year. As reproduced above, they have used the expression "the last assessed total income" in paragraph (ii) of clause(a) of section 1 of the relevant Self-Assessment Scheme and then it has been defined in clause (d) of section 3 thereof. Thus, the "last" is said to be the "latest" which necessarily means "latest" out of several. Since the assessment year involved is assessment year 1989-90 therefore, assessment years 1988-89, 1987-88, 1956-87, 1985-86 and 1984-85 etc. etc., shall be several assessment years prior to it. However, in order to find out the "latest" assessment year, the only condition which has been laid down is that its assessment order should have been completed before 15th October, 1989, which is the date of filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90. But it is important to note that the assessment years 1988-89 and 1987-88 have been completed before 15th October. Thus, the only condition laid down for determining the latest assessment year is met by both assessment years 1987-&'i and 19&R-89. As such, by applying the natural and grammatical meaning to both assessment years 1988-89 and 1987-88, we are left with no alternative but to call assessment year 1988-89 as the "latest" assessment year as it is, by all means, "latest" and of course, it also represents the last assessed total income. We would have accepted the contention of Mr. Ashrafuddin Bhatti, had the C.B.R. confined themselves to the use of the words "last assessed total income", because in that case, the last assessed total income would be that of 29th June, 1989. However, by defining the expression "last assessed total income", the emphasis has been placed on the "latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90" and consequently, we are left with nor choice but to declare assessment year 1988-89 as the "latest" assessment year, the total income of which represents the "last assessed total income" in spite of the fact that the "last assessed total income" is that of 1987-88 as it was assessed subsequent to that of assessment year 1988-89. We have discussed above the relevant provisions of various Self-Assessment Schemes right from assessment years 197)-8tl to 1988-89, and the conspicuous departure in the use of language from the past in assessment year 1989-tX1 cannot be ignored. Nobody can hold cudgel to the proposition that if the legislature makes any departure in the use of the language as against the language used earlier, it docs so with some intent and purpose and the Courts are bound to give effect to that intent and purpose and in our judgment, we have done so.
14. As mentioned earlier, C.B.R. have been issuing Circulars from time to time to clarify their intent and purpose with the help of illustrations. It, therefore, would not be out of place if we also explain our point of view with the help of an illustration and we frame it as under:--
ILLUSTRATION
| Assessment Year | Declared Income | Assessed income | Date of assessed income |
| 1984-85 | Rs.50,000/ | Rs.80.000/ | 20-10-1989 |
| 1985-86 | Rs.80,000/- | Rs.1,20,000/- | 10-10-1989 |
| 1986-87 | Rs.1,10,000/- | Rs.1,10,000/- | 10-09-1989 |
| 1987-88 | Rs.26,250/- | Rs.2,26,260/- | 19-06-1989 |
| 1988-89 | Rs.62,622/- | Rs.62,622/- | 28-01-1989 |
15. Let us ask the question as to which is the "last assessed total income" for the purposes of finding out as to whether the declared income of Rs.93,522 in assessment year 1989-90 is qualified to be accepted under aforesaid Circular No.7?
16. Now as far as assessment year 1984-85 is concerned, it is surely showing, the last assessed and declared total income at an amount lesser than Rs.1,00,000 and its assessment order is latest in point of time also. However, it would not help' us simply because it is not the latest assessment year, the assessment order of which stood completed before 15th October, 1989. It therefore, stands excluded. When we come to assessment year 1985-86 although it is showing the last declared total income at Rs.80,000 which is less than Rs.1,00,000. Thus, even though it is last in point of time and its assessment order has also been completed before 15th October, 1989 vet it cannot be called the latest assessment year in view of the definition of the "last assessed total income" as contained in clause(d) of section 3 of aforesaid circular simply because its total income stands at more than Rs.1,00,000. It, therefore, also is to be excluded for our purposes. Now, when we come to assessment year 1986-87, we find that its declared and assessed total income is more than Rs.1,00,000 and although its assessment order has been I completed on 10th September, 1989 yet it would neither fall within the definition of latest assessment year nor would qualify to be treated as the case in which the last declared and assessed total income i, at less than Rs.t,00,000. This leads us to assessment year 1987-88. Here, the declared total income is less than Rs.1,00,000 but assessed total income is more than Rs.1,00,000 and the date of assessment' order is also prior to 15th October, 1989 but this would again be not called the latest assessment year in spite of the fact that the date of its assessment order is the last date of assessment after excluding the dates of assessment orders of assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 for the simple reason that in between assessment year 1987-88 and assessment year 1989-90, another assessment year 1988-89 intervenes. Thus, the latest assessment year would be the assessment year 1988-89 as it is immediately preceding year of assessment year 1989-90 although its assessment order does not show the last assessed total income. In other words, though the last assessed total income is that of the assessment year 1987-88 being 29th June, 1989 yet the latest assessment year would be assessment year 1988-89 though it would not show the last assessed total income.
17. Let us explain this difference from another angle. The assessment orders for assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 have been framed before the date of the filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90 namely 15th October, 1989. Thus, if we have to go by the date of assessment order, then the last assessed total income would be that of assessment year 1985-86 as it is the last in point of time with reference to the date of the filing of the return for assessment year 1989-90. However, it would not be the latest assessment year with reference to the assessment year 1989-90. But since the definition of "last assessed total income" refers to "latest assessment year prior to assessment year 1989-90", therefore, it would be essentially and necessarily assessment year 1988-89 as its total income has also been assessed before 15th October, 1989. To put it in other words, although the total assessed income for all the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 has been determined before 15th October, 1989 namely on l9th October, 1989, 10th September, 1989, 29th June, 1989, and 28th January, 1989 yet the latest assessment year would be assessment' year 1988-89 despite the fact that the last assessed total income would be that of assessment year 1985-86.
18. In view of discussion made above, we feel that the legislature has used the expression "latest" which represents superlative degree of the adjective "late" in its natural and grammatical meaning. It, therefore, necessarily implies more than two for purposes of comparison. Thus, the expression "latest year" would mean a year which is latest out of several years. If any authority is needed in support of this observation, reference may be made to (1968) 68 ITR 877 Chitra Cinema v. Income Tax Officer, in which for purposes of payment of advance tax for assessment year 1963-64, the I.T,O. had issued notice on the basis of the total income determined in assessment year 1959-60, which was the latest previous year. However, since the assessment order for assessment year 1959-60 stood vacated by the Tribunal before the I.T.O. recorded his order under section 10 of Income Tax Act of 1961, Allahabad High Court quashed the notice. Thus, assessment year 1959-60 was accepted to be the latest previous year because assessment orders for several assessment years also stood completed prior to completion of the assessment order of assessment year 1963-64.
19. We, therefore, are of the considered view that in view of the language used in clause(d) of section 3, the last assessed total income is that of assessment year 1988-89 and thus the learned I.A.C. has arrived at wrong conclusion. However, before parting with this appeal, we would like to point out that the fact that the assessment order for assessment year 1987-88 was framed under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, does not make any difference for the simple reason that the definition of the "assessment" as contained in subsection (7) of section 2 of the Income Tax Ordinance includes re-assessment and additional assessment with all their cognate expressions. Moreover, in section 53 also, section 59, 59(a), 60, 62, 63, or 65 has been used as against the expression "regular assessment" used in section 209 of Indian Income Tax Act. In our judgment, assessment year 1987-88 does not represent the last assessed total income because it is not that of latest assessment year and not because it was determined under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance.
20. Thus, in view of discussion made above, we are of the view that the learned I.A.C. has misdirected himself in canceling the assessment order for the simple reason that he has taken into consideration the "last assessed total income" in its ordinary meaning, though it has been specifically defined. The appeal, is therefore, hereby allowed and the I.T.O. is directed to accept the return under Self-Assessment Scheme.
21. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
M.B.A./1208/TAppeal allowed.