W.T.A. NO.372/KB O:' 1999-2000 VS W.T.A. NO.372/KB O:' 1999-2000
2001 P T D (Trib.) 2017
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and
Muhammad Mahboob Alam, Accountant Member
W.T.A. No.372/KB of 1999-2000, decided on 10/06/2000.
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----Ss.31-B, 14-A, 24 & 25---Additional tax----Assessing Officer had charged additional tax under S.31-B, Wealth Tax Act, 1963 though there was no default in payment of tax under S.14-A, Wealth Tax - Act, 1963-- Commissioner of Income-tax (A), in appeal, instead of cancelling/deleting the charge of additional tax, set aside the finding of the Assessing Officer with the observation that the additional tax was leviable under S.31-BB of the Wealth Tax Act. 1963 and gave the direction to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law---Validity---Held, setting aside of the issue pertaining to the charge of additional tax and consequential direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) were manifestly beyond the jurisdiction vested in the CIT(A)---Finding of CIT(A) was modified by the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that finding relating to charge of additional tax and consequential direction were vacated and charge of additional tax under S.31B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was cancelled/deleted.
S. Rehan Hasan lafri, I.T.P. for Appellant.
Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 10th June, 2000.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, (CHAIRMAN). ---in this appeal at the instance of assessee following objection has been raised:---
"It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not deleting, as was prayed for in appeal by the appellant, the charge of additional tax of Rs.2,102 levied by the learned Assessing Officer under section 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which is illegal."
2. Heard Mr. S. Rehan Hassan Jafri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Khalid Siddiqui, learned representative for the department.
3. Mr. Rehan Jafri has submitted that the Assessing Officer charged additional tax under section 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which was not sustainable in fact and law. He has submitted :that it is admitted position that there was no default in payment of tax under section 14-A, of the Wealth Tax Act, and therefore, the additional tax under section 31-B was liable to be cancelled. The learned CIT(A) accepted the above contention but instead of cancelling/deleting the charge of additional tax set aside the finding with the observation that the additional tax was leviable under section 31-BBB and with the direction for fresh decision in accordance with the law. Mr. Jafri I has vehemently argued that the learned CIT(A) has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in him and thus has fallen in error. Mr. Jafri has contended that the sole issue before the learned CIT(A) was if the additional tax charged under section 31-B was sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Once he came to the conclusion that the additional tax which formed subject-matter of appeal was trot sustainable, he ought to have cancelled/deleted the, same. The learned CIT(A) instead of acting within the four corners of law, assumed the jurisdiction for giving direction to charge an entirely different additional tax which was not the subject-matter of appeal. .
4.The learned D.R. is not to rebut the above contentions.
5. We are persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Jafri. the setting aside of the issue pertaining to the charging of additional tax and consequential direction given by the learned CIT(A) are manifestly beyond the jurisdiction vested in learned CIT(A). The impugned finding of learned CIT(A) is, therefore, hereby modified. The finding setting aside the issue relating to charge of additional tax and consequential directions are hereby vacated. The additional tax charged under section. 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is hereby cancelled/deleted. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
M.B.A./79/Tax(Trib.) Appeal allowed.