Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 108(b), 139 & 142---Submission of statements to an officer having no jurisdiction---Penalty---Validity---Admittedly the statements were not submitted to the competent officer, submission of the statements to an officer having no relevance or jurisdiction over the case could not be termed as the compliance of the statutory provisions-- Penalty imposed was confirmed by the Tribunal.

(1981) 43 Tax 51 (Trib.) ref.

Mudassar Shah for Appellant

Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R. for Respondent

Date of hearing: 23rd November, 2001.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER). ---These two appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dated 18-11-2000, whereunder he maintained the orders of DCIT ,passed by him under section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance; 1979.

2. The facts so far as relevant to the disposal of these appeals are that the appellant had not submitted statements under sections 139 and 142 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the DCIT Circle-12, Cos. Zone-IV, Karachi with whom lay the jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. In response to notice under section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance the appellant stated that the said statements had been sent through registered post to Circle-19, Zone-F, Karachi. The D.C.I.T. however, imposed penalty under section 108. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who set side the order for de novo proceedings. This operating part of the order is reproduced below:---

"The perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was not provided adequate opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer which is evident from the fact that no date of service show-cause notice is mentioned in the body of the orders. The impugned orders are, therefore, not sustainable and as such are being set aside for de novo proceedings in accordance with law and after providing sufficient opportunity of the appellant of being heard."

3. The WIT took up reassessment proceedings consequent upon the order of the learned CIT(A). He came to the conclusion that non- filing of statutory statements before the competent authority is non compliance of the provisions of law and, therefore, he imposed penalties accordingly. These penalties have now been confirmed by the CIT(A) and are under appeal before us.

4. At the time of hearing of the appeals the learned A.R. has candidly accepted that in this case the DCIT Circle-12, Cos. IV, has jurisdiction under sections 139 and 142 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. He, however, pleads that this is a general practice that if some statement, return or certificate is erroneously submitted by an assessee to an officer other than to whom these are to be legally submitted the officer receiving such statement, certificate or return generally forwards it to the competent officer. In this case the statements had erroneously been sent to an officer in Zone-F, Karachi who should have forwarded the same to the competent officer. Further, it is asserted that copies of the statements were provided to toe competent officer in response to the notice under section 116 of the Ordinance and, therefore, he should have taken a lenient view and no penalty should have been imposed by him. The learned D.R. on his turn supported the orders of the authorities below.

5. It is a settled principle that fiscal statutes should be interpreted strictly in accordance with the language used in the enactment (1981) 43 Tax 51 (Trib.) In view of this position since admittedly the statements' were not submitted to the competent officer, submission of the statements to an officer having no relevance or jurisdiction over the case cannot be termed as the compliance of the statutory provisions. In this view of the matter it is held that the penalties were rightly imposed by the DICT and legally maintained by the CIT (A).

6. Consequently the appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed.

C.M.A./196/Tax (Trib.) Appeals dismissed.