I. T. A. NO. 1931 /KB OF 1999-2000 ' VS I. T. A. NO. 1931 /KB OF 1999-2000 '
2001 P T D (Trib.) 17
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before S. M. Sibtain, Accountant Member and S-Hasan Imam, Judicial Member
I. T. A'. No. 1931/KB of 1999-2000, decided on 05/08/2000.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.12(18)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.13(2)---Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan---Addition ---Addition of.Rs.6,86,000 was made under S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was received by the assessee in cash as loan below each Rs.1,00,000 from several persons---Assessee contended that aggregate loan from several persons having exceeded Rs.1,00,000 did not attract the provision of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as words used in subsection (18) of S.12 were "any person" which meant a single person---Validity---Held, according to subsection (2) of S.13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in all Central Acts arid Regulations, unless there was anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa---Addition made to the assessee's income, therefore, was upheld by Tribunal.
Aminuddin Shaikh for Appellant:
Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 2000.
ORDER
S. M. SIBTAIN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):---Objection is taken in this appeal at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned CKT(A) for upholding the addition of Rs. 6,86,000 made by the learned DCIT under subsection (18) of section 12 of Income Tax Ordinance.
2. We have heard the learned representatives of the two parties. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant has declared as liability amounting to Rs. 6,86,000 and it has been explained that it is on account of loan obtained from the following persons at the time of purchase of a property to meet the shortage of fund.
| | Rs. |
| 1.Ghulam Nabi son of Mataro Khan Rahu R/o Mehran Colony, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 2. Muhammad Siddique son of Ghulam Din Rahu R/o H. No.C-223, Moni Bazar, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 3. Ghulam Hyder son of Ghulam Nabi Rahu R/o Mehran Colony, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 4. Mevo Khan son of Nabi Bux, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 5. Ghulam Muhammad son of Nabi Bux, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 6. Muhammad Changai son of Nabi Bux, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| 7. Dost Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad, Nawabshah. | 98,000 |
| | 686,000 |
3. However, the learned Assessing Officer has alleged that the appellant has failed to provide. proper addresses of lenders and admittedly the amounts (supra) have been advanced in cash. The learned Assessing Officer therefore, has concluded that the appellant has failed to prove that loans below Rs.1,00,000 each have been obtained from 7 different persons and since the loans (supra) is admittedly received in cash, the learned DCIT had held that it attracts provisions of section 12(16) of the Income Tax Ordinance.
4. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the impugned decision of the learned DCIT with the following observations and finding:
"It would be seen that essentially the plea taken by the learned counsel is that the amount of cash loan Rs.6,86,000 is not from one person but from several persons and that. ir. no case does the individual loan exceeds Rs.1,00,000 and hence the provision of section 12(18) is not applicable. This in my view is not the correct interpretation of law. The minimum limit, of Rs.1,00,000 prescribed is in respect of total amount of loan obtained in cash whether it be from one person or several persons in a year and it is the aggregate of the sum which has to be looked into and in case the aggregate amount exceeds Rs.1,00,000 the amount attracts the provision of section 12(18) irrespective of the number of persons from whom such sum has been- received. Thus, the special Officer rightly made the addition under section 12(18) which is hereby confirmed. "
5. Subsection (18) of section 12 provides that where any sum, or aggregate of sums, claimed or shown to have been received from any person as loan by an assessee during any income year otherwise than by a cross cheque drawn on a bank exceed Rs.1,00,000, the said sum or aggregate of sums shall be deemed to be income of the assessee for the said income year chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation of the learned DCIT regarding non-submission of addresses of lenders is incorrect because the copies of their N.I.Cs. have been submitted before him. However, it has not been substantiated with any documentary evidence.
7. Further it is submitted that the learned CI'T (A) is not justified in holding that even if the aggregate loans from several persons exceeds Rs.1,00,000 it attracts provisions of subsection (18) of section 12: According to the learned Counsel of the appellant the words used in subsection (18) are "any persons" which means a single person.
8. We regret were cannot subscribe to the view (supra) because according to subsection (2) of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa.
9. Accordingly, we find that there is no substance in the submissions (supra) either on facts or in law; hence impugned order confirmed and appeal dismissed.
C.M.A./M.A.K./47/Tax (Trib.) ??????????
Appeal dismissed.