I.TA. NO.614/1B OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 18TH APRIL, 1995. VS I.TA. NO.614/1B OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 18TH APRIL, 1995., 1995 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 1439 (1995)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

---S. 59(1)---Self-assessment Scheme (1991-92), para.4(ii)---C.B.R. Circular No.22 of 1991 dated 21st July, 1991---Selection of case of assessee for total audit ---Definite information---Suspicion of gross understatement of income-- Material evidence---Selection of case for total audit on the ground that assessee's income had remained almost static although the capital available with the assessee could have resulted in higher income---Validity---Held, mere fact that an assessee s income had remained static over a period of few year would not amount to a definite informationbased on material evidence to suspect gross understatement of assessee's income.

Nasir Hussain D.R. for Appellant

.

Ghulam Abbas Chattha and M. Ilyas Mian for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th April, 1995.

ORDER

CH. IRSHAD AHMAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---The assessee, an individual derives income from dealings in' hosiery items on retail/whole-sale basis. The return of income filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year 1991-92 the assessee declared her net income at Rs.73,000 which was worked out as under:--

However, the I.T.O. selected the assessee's return for total audit under paragraph 4(ii) of the Scheme and ultimately made assessment at net income of Rs.2,40,000 which was computed as under:--

On assessee's appeal the Appeal Commissioner found that the assessee's return was not selected for total audit on valid grounds. Resultantly the assessment was vacated and directions for the acceptance of the income declared in the return were issued.

Through this appeal the I.T.O. has objected to the order of the Appeal Commissioner on the ground that he was quite justified to select the assessee's return for total audit.

We have heard Mr. Nasir Hussain, D.R. for the I.T.O. and Messrs Ghulam Abbas Chuttha and M. Ilyas Mian, Advocates for the assessee.

After hearing the D.R. and the counsel for the assessee, we are not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the orders of the Appeal Commissioner. The only material on which the assessing officer decided to select the assessee's return for total audit, was that the assessee's declared income from 1987-88 to 1991-92 had remained almost static although the capital available with the assessee should have resulted in higher income. In our view the mere fact that an assessee's income had remained static over a period of few years does not amount to a definite information based on material evidence to suspect gross understatement of assessee's income, The I.T.O.'s appeal is rejected.

M.BA./126/TAppeal dismissed.