I. T. A. NO. 6310/LB OF 1996 VS I. T. A. NO. 6310/LB OF 1996
1997 P T D (Trib.) 2195
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Muhammad Zaman Khan, Judicial Member and
Iftikhar Ahmad Bajwa, Accountant Member
I. T. A. No. 6310/LB of 1996, decided on 21/10/1996.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.63---Best judgment assessment---Ex-parte proceedings---Registered post envelope on record indicated that Assessing Officer completed ex parte assessment on ground of non-compliance of notice---Contention of assessee was that he had been condemned unheard at both the forums below, though his presence had been marked at the time of hearing of the appeal before C. I. T. (Appeal)---Facts narrated by assessee showed that contention of assessee had some merits and his absence was not intentional- --Held, ends of justice would properly be met if assessment be set aside for de novo proceedings, giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Assessee in person.
Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 1996.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This second appeal filed at the instance of the assessee seeks to call in question order dated 25-6-1996 rendered by the then CIT(A) Zone-II, Lahore. Earlier assessment order was recorded by the Special Officer of Income Tax Circle 14 Companies Zone-II Lahore on 28-5-1995. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The assessee, an individual derived income during the charge year from legal profession as an Advocate and income from property.
2. The brief facts of the matter relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that due to non-compliance of Notices by the assessee, as alleged in the assessment order, the assessment in this case was completed ex parte under section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Total net income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.3,51,838 as against Rs.58,740 declared. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee lodged first appeal challenging the correctness, of ex parte assessment order and the liability to pay tax as determined by the Assessing Officer. The first Appellate Authority did not see any merit in the contentions raised before it by the assessee and thus the appeal was dismissed by the CIT (A). The assessee, has, therefore, come up in second appeal before us.
3. We have heard the assessee/appellant and the learned D.R. representing the revenue/respondent and have also gone through the orders, which have been delivered in this case at the two forums below.
4. It has been submitted by the assessee/appellant that he -has been condemned unheard at both the forums below, though his presence has been marked at the time of hearing of the appeal before the CIT (A). Be that as it may, the assessment order was passed ex parte and according to the assessee/appellant notice issued by the Assessing Officer for appearance before him on 28-5-1994 was never- served on him. In order to lend support to his submission, the assessee has also placed on the record "Registered Post Envelope" which indicates that the letter containing Notice had remained in the possession of the Postman till 29-5-1995. It has been submitted by the assessee/appellant that this letter was despatched to him at his office address and was delivered to him on 30-5-1995 when he had attended the office after a few days-due to the marriage of his son and it was for this reason that the Postman had to keep the letter in his possession for some days, as is clear from the dates as recorded by the Postman in this regard, on the back of the envelope. With the above circumstances in the background, the assessee has further submitted that his non-participation in the assessment proceedings was not intentional and the ex parte order passed on 28-5-1995 was illegal. The facts narrated above indicate that there is some merit in the submissions made by the assessee and thus we have reached the irresistible conclusion that ends of justice would be properly met with if the assessment made is set aside for de novo proceedings in accordance with law and we order accordingly.
5. As a sequel to the above, the order passed by the CIT (A) is vacated and the case is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for completing assessment for the year under review, of course providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and producing evidence, if any to the assessee, as per his contentions, legal as well as factual.
6. The appeal filed by the assessee stands disposed of in the above terms.
C.M.S./334/Trib. ??????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.