I.T.A. NO.928/LB OF 1995 VS I.T.A. NO.928/LB OF 1995
1997 P T D (Trib.) 851
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and Shariq Mahmood, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No. 928/LB of 1995, decided on 13/12/1995.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S. 66(1)(c)---Limitation---Remand of case---Case was remanded by Tribunal for verification of credit purchases and re-assessment---Assessing Officer did not frame the assessment of the case within one year time limitation prescribed under S.66(1)(c)]---After lapse of limitation in reply to notice issued by Assessing Officer, assessee took position that assessment was time-barred---Assessing Officer, rejecting claim of assessee, completed assessment---First Appellate Authority cancelled assessment on account of its having been framed out of time---Held, Revenue having admitted thatTribunal's order was duly conveyed to Assessing Authority, Assessment Proceedings initiated after lapse of stipulated one year time was certainly 1,.irred by limitation prescribed under 5.66(1)( ) of the Ordinance incircumstances.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--
---S. 66(1)(c)---Limitation---Remand of case by Appellate Tribunal-- Prescribed Period of limitation under S.66(1)(c) started running from the moment when Assessing Authority came to know of order of remand passed by Appellate Tribunal.
Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant.
Sohail Muttee Babri, I.T.P. for Respondent
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1995.
ORDER
This departmental appeal for the Assessment year 1984-85 calls into question an order recorded by C.I.T. (A)-V, Lahore on 4-1-1995 whereby assessment framed under section 62/135 was cancelled to the extent of directions as contained in the order of this Tribunal dated 13-2-1989 recorded on the appeal of the assessee.
2. The respondent in this case is a registered firm and derives income from construction contracts. Its case was partly remanded by this Tribunal through the aforesaid order dated 13-2-1989 for the purpose of verifying credit purchases from three sellers detailed in the body of the assessment order recorded after remand. Before the Assessing Officer in reply to the notice under section 61 the assessee took up the position that since the assessment had not been finalized till 30-6-1990 it had become time-barred. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that the order of the Tribunal was conveyed to the department on 1-6-1989. Instead it was recorded that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income Tax received the order of the Tribunal before 6-5-1993. The assessee, however, appears to have participated in the proceedings. The Assessing Officer after incorporating various other appeal effects estimated receipts at Rs.56,96,563 and subjected them to a rate of 15 % . The profit and loss additions and an addition under section 13(1)(c) at Rs.86,966 as confirmed by C.I.T. (A) finally resulted in the computation of total income at Rs.11.91, 306.
2. Learned First Appellate Authority by way of the impugned order found that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was duly despatched to C. I. T., Zone-A and the I.T.O. concerned on 1-6-1989 by registered post. Learned first appellate authority also recorded that C.I.T. confirmed in writing that the order of this Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.5/LB of 1987-88, dated 13-2-1989 was duly received by him on 3-6-1989 and conveyed to the Assessing Officer on 22-6-1989. Accordingly the assessment order recorded matter remand was cancelled on account of its having been framed out of time.
3. Parties have been heard. Learned A.R. of the assessee has placed on record a letter dated 18-12-1984 from Commissioner 3f Income Tax Zone. Lahore addressed to C.I.T. (A)-V, Lahore. It confirms that the above said order of the Tribunal recorded on Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was received in the office of the Commissioner on 3-6-1989 and the LTO. on 22-6-1989. The communication confirms the findingthe first appellate authority. Learned D.R. has not been able to controvert Me said information conveyed to the first appellate authority. It is also worm mentioned that even in the grounds of appeal the receipts of the order of that Tribunal by both the Revenue Authorities on the dates detailed in the body of the impugned order has not been controverted. Instead a very vague reason hen advanced that the Appellate Authority "was not justified to cancel the assessment, on the issue of time-barred. This issue was decided by the Honourable Wafaqi Mohtasib to re-assess the case and the assessee duly joined the proceedings and the time-barred issue was never taken up at re-assessment stage before the Assessing Officer".
4. Even a glance at the abovesaid grounds of appeal will indicate that the appellant while framing the same never cared to go through the assessment order recorded by him or by his predecessor. As discussed above the issue of limitation was duly raised and repelled by the Assessing Officer in sufficient details. The appellant Assessing Officer has attempted to introduce another factum of precedings before the Honourable Wafaqi Mohtasib which do not find mention whatsoever at the first two stages of the proceedings. Learned D.R. in absence of record also expresses his inability to enlighten us as to nature and the result of any proceeding before the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib.
5. Be that as it may, the Revenue having admitted in writing that the order of this Tribunal was duly conveyed to them on 3-6-1989 and 22-6-1989 the assessment proceedings initiated after 30-6-1990 were certainly barred by limitation prescribed under section 66(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance.
6. Therefore, the impugned order is not open to exception. Appeal dismissed.
M.B.A./259/TAppeal dismissed.