Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 63 & Second Sched., Part I, Cl. 54‑A(b)‑‑‑Best judgment assessment‑‑‑Salary income‑‑‑Lump sum addition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Authorities below were bent upon making some additions .only because the orders were being made ex parte‑‑‑Validity‑-‑Whenever the Assessing Officer proceeded ex parte, the onus shifted on him to justify his estimates of income against the declared income and mere an ex parte order was no justification for making ad hoc additions‑-‑Assessing Officer was directed by the Tribunal to delete the lump sum addition and also to allow the exemption available to the assessee as per Cl. 54‑A of Part I of Second Sched. of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

Abdul Waheed, I.T.P. for Appellant.

Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th November, 2001.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant in this case is a salaried person and is aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), dated 22‑1‑1995 whereunder he confirmed the assessment made by the DCIT at total income of Rs.304,016 against declared income of Rs.94,560.

2. Both the learned representatives have been heard and the orders of the authorities below perused.

3. The facts so far as relevant to this appeal are that the case of the appellant is said to have been selected for audit through Random Ballot but in spite of service of statutory notices none had attended to pursue the matter before the DCIT. The DCIT made the assessment as under:‑‑‑

Income declaredRs. 94,560

Add: Utilities claimed at Rs.9,456 for

lack of evidences.Rs. 9,456

Addition as discussed above.Rs. 200,000

Total Income:‑‑ Rs.304,016

4. The lump sum addition was made by the DCIT with the following observations:‑‑ .

"This show‑cause notice was also not complied with, therefore, ex parte assessment is finalized keeping in view the history of the` case. Since the assessee has a history of ex parte assessments, therefore, lump sum addition of Rs.200,000 is made to the income of the income of assessee."

5. The CIT(A) confirmed the order with the following observations:‑‑‑

"The record shows that the Assessing Officer has provided proper and sufficient opportunities of hearing but at all the time the appellant or his counsel failed to make the observations of the statutory notices. The learned Assessing Officer has passed an ex parte order under section 63 on the income of Rs.304,016 which is reasonable. It is, therefore, upheld. There is no substance in appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed."

6. It is argued by the learned A.R. before us that no justification whatsoever has been given for the lump sum addition made in the income of the appellant and that the utilities claimed being exempt under clause (54A)(b) of Part‑I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the add back in the income was not justified. The learned D.R. has candidly conceded that the, additions made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT(A) are without any justification.

7. It appears that both the authorities below were bent upon making some additions only because the orders were being made ex parte. We may observe that whenever the Assessing Officer proceeds ex parte, the onus shifts to him to justify his estimates of income against the declared income and mere an ex parse order is no justification for making ad hoc additions. It is, therefore, directed that the lump sum addition be deleted and exemption available to the appellant as per clause (54A) referred supra be allowed to him.

8. Consequently the appeal succeeds to the extent and in the manner indicated above.

C.M.A./M.A.K./197/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.