I.T.A. NO. 1620/LB OF 2000 VS I.T.A. NO. 1620/LB OF 2000
2001 P T D (Trib.) 811
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member
I.T.A. No. 1620/LB of 2000, decided on 22/11/2000.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S. 59---C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 1996, dated 1-7-1996---C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1996, dated 3-9-1996---C.B.R. Letter C. No.7(27)/S.Asstt./96, dated 2-6-1996---Self assessment---"Broad-based Self-Assessment Scheme" for assessment year 1996-97---New taxpayer---Declared income under Self Assessment Scheme of the successor new taxpayer was excluded from the purview of Self-Assessment Scheme and assessment was finalised on the basis of estimate without pointing out any concealment ---Validity-- Paras. 7(a) & 7(b) of C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 1996 having been omitted through C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1996, a new taxpayer had not only become entitled to acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme but was not even a case of succession if the person taking over business was a new taxpayer---Concealment having not been found, exclusion of assessee from Self-Assessment Scheme was not justified in circumstance.
Syed Iftikhar Arshad, I.T.P. for Appellant.
Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2000.
ORDER
In this case the petitioner is the assessee whose declared income was exclude from the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme by the I.T.O and assessment subsequently was finalized on estimate basis.
The assessee's claim before the subordinate officers as well as before me remained that he was a new taxpayer and the C.B.R. had directed for acceptance of the returns in the case of new assessee by omitting certain clauses of original Circular No.4 of 1996 through Circular No. 16 of 1996, dated 14-6-1996. As a result of above omission the case of new taxpayer even in the cases of succession of some other assessee was to be accepted under S.A.S. Subsequent to the said circular another instruction was issued vide Letter C. No.7(27)/S. Asstt./96, dated 2-6-1996 through which it was directed that the returns of new taxpayers be accepted if there was -no concealment.
Referring to the above circulars the learned A.R. further added that all his investment stood explained and there was no concealment as is evident from the subsequent assessment by the I.T.O. himself, which is only an estimate and nothing had been added in the deemed provisions of law.
The D.R., however, disagreed with him. He said that the case was that of a taken-over shop hence the provisions of Self-Assessment referred by the A.R. were not applicable. I consider myself in disagreement with learned D.R. The Circular No. 16 of 1996 as referred by learned A.R is continuous to Circular No. 4 of 1996. The C.B.R. through the same has omitted paras. 7(a) and 7(b) of Circular No.4 of 1996 as a result of which a new taxpayer not only becomes entitled to acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme but it also does not become a case of succession if the taking over person is a new taxpayer. Further, the department has itself not found any concealment in this case and instructions given vide circular letter mentioned above, therefore, are also applicable. In view of this accumulated position in this case I hold that the exclusion from S.A.S. was not justified.
The case fully qualifies hence I direct for its acceptance accordingly.
C.M.A./M.A.K,/56/Tax (Trio.) Appeal accepted.