Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 66-A---Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner's order ---Assessee showed opening stock as Rs.52,000 instead of Rs.5,20,000 through a clerical mistake while total of trading account could be arrived at only by adding Rs.5,20,000---Assessment was revised under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity-- Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance was meant for being invoked only in such cases in which some patently erroneous order was passed by the Assessing Officer which caused prejudice to the Revenue---Order under S.66-A should not be in the nature of tinkering or just on petty matters or without properly examining the substance of the matter---Order of Inspecting Additional Commissioner under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was annulled by Appellate Tribunal in the circumstances.

Javed Iqbal, I.T.P. for Appellant.

Mehfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1999.

ORDER

This is assessee's appeal against IAC's order under section 66-A. Mr. Javed Iqbal, I.T.R: appeared for the assessee appellant while Mr. Mehfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, D.R. represented the Department. Both the parties to appeal have been heard and the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as that of the IAC have been perused. Mr. Javed Iqbal argued that the IAC had not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case while observing that the assessee had incorrectly shown the value of opening stock at Rs.52.000 while last year's closing stock was shown at Rs.5,20,000. He informed that this was just small typographical error in shape of omission of one zero while actually the total of the trading account at Rs.11,97,698 could be arrived at only by adding Rs.5,20,000 to the figure of purchases at Rs.4,61,930 and gross profit Rs.2,15,768. Similarly, he claimed that there was no substance in IAC's observations that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue because he had failed to pass order under section 68(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance. In first place the IAC had not demonstrated as to how this had caused prejudice to the revenue and the firm stood dissolved, and therefore, no such order was required to be passed in the second.

2. D.R. was not able to proper y controvert these arguments or prove with any plausible argument or material that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was actually erroneous, had caused prejudice to the Revenue and, therefore, action under section 66-A by the IAC was exigeble under the law. Income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs.166,400 against declared income of Rs.85,000 after necessary additions as individual. Assessee's A.R. informed that copy of dissolution deed had been supplied to CIT during the course of assessment proceedings, and therefore, IAC's remarks that the same was subsequently supplied are unwarranted the argued that such things as the assessee failing to mark the status as "Individual" on the return are extraneous and do not justify such drastic action by the IAC. Assessee's A.R's. arguments carry force. Section 66-A is meant for being invoked only in such case in which some patently erroneous order was passed by the Assessing Officer which caused prejudice to the Revenue. Such order (under section 66-A) should not be in the nature of tinkering or just on petty matters or without properly examining the substance of the matter as in case of the figure of opening stock for this year. In these circumstances, assessee's appeal is accepted and IAC's order under section 66-A is annulled.

C. M. A. /M. A. K./21/Tax(Trib.)Appeal accepted.