Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑--

‑‑‑‑S. 63‑‑‑Best judgment assessment‑‑‑Assessment on the basis of Inspector's report in the hand if a woman who was house wife‑‑ Tampering with record‑‑‑Cancellation of assessment by the First Appellate Authority‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Record established that enquiry was conducted on 16‑3‑1998 and the report with regard to said enquiry was submitted on 15‑5‑2000‑‑‑Enquiry report, dated 15‑5‑2002 could not be considered a valid enquiry report pertaining to assessment years 1995‑96, 1996‑97 and 1997‑1998‑‑‑Tampering with the record by changing dates, would also lead to the conclusion that all along some one, had been acting mala fide‑‑‑Safe conclusion was that Assessing Officer did not have any other valid basis except the enquiry report on which he relied‑‑‑Order of First Appellate Authority was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal and appeal of the Department was dismissed.

Dr. Khalil Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant.

Nadeem Ahsan, I.T.P. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th August, 2003.

ORDER

The present three appeals at the, instance of the Revenue pertaining to assessment years 1995‑96, 1996‑97 & 1997‑98 have been preferred against the combined impugned order, dated 11‑3‑2002 passed by the learned CIT(A), Multan. The sole ground which has been agitated at the bar for all the three years under appeal is that the learned First Appellate, Authority was wrong in canceling the assessment order, dated 30‑6‑2001.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case that assessee an individual did not file suo‑motu return. The case was booked on receipt of information. After issuance of notice under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, returns were filed declaring Nil income for all the charge years. As per observation made by the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee sought adjournments and ultimately nobody bothered to attend the assessment proceedings. It has also been observed by the Assessing Officer in the body of assessment order that an enquiry was conducted through Circle Inspector on 16‑3‑1998 and in light of said enquiry, proposed action was confronted to the assessee under section 62 of the Ordinance and finally on 23‑6‑2001, ex parte assessment was framed whereby income of the assessee was fixed at Rs.250,000, Rs.260,000 end Rs.290,000 for the assessment years 1995‑96, 1996‑97 and 1997‑98 respectively. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned assessment, the assessee approached the learned First Appellant Authority, who vide order, dated 11‑3‑2002 cancelled the assessments. The department is in further appeal assailing the same.

3. Dr. Khalil Ahmad, D.R. was present for the Revenue whereas Mr. Nadeem Ahsan, ITP appeared on behalf of the assessee‑respondent.

4. Learned DR has vehemently argued the case and contended that learned First Appellate Authority erred in law while canceling the impugned assessments. It was further contended that assessment was finalized on the basis of report of Circle Inspector, who conducted enquiry on 16‑3‑1998 and after fulfillment of requisite legal procedures and formalities, the report was confronted to the assessee. It was also submitted that the husband of the assessee made a statement that business, is being carried out by his wife. It was further stressed that non-cooperation of assessee by itself showed that assessee despite the opportunities which were given to him, did not have any defence, to counter the proposed action by the department.

5. On the contrary, learned AR has strenuously opposed the arguments advanced by the learned DR. He submitted that no business is being conducted by the assessee who is a woman and house wife. It was further submitted that complaint which was made the basis for initiating the assessment proceedings against the assessee was misconceived and mala fide for the reason that no affidavit was appended with the complaint and further more no photocopy of NIC was attached with the same which made it anonymous complaint. It was stressed by the learned AR of the assessee that department is not supposed to take action on the basis of such complaint which are filed by the people to harass their opponents. Learned AR further stated that so called enquiry was enacted on 16‑3‑1998 while the same was submitted on 15‑5‑2000 by the Circle Inspector after the lap of two years and two months and no explanation whatsoever has been made that why the department took so long to submit the said enquiry report. It was also pointed out that tampering of dates of notices has also been found in the record which clearly indicates that someone was hell‑bent to build up the case against the assessee. Learned AR also highlighted many other contradictions with regard to conduct and submission of enquiry report.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the relevant orders. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. There is no denying fact that only reason which made basis for initiating assessment proceedings against the assessee was Circle Inspector's report. However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that admittedly it was on the basis of a anonymous complaint. Even otherwise it is established on record that enquiry was conducted on 16‑3‑1998 and the report with regard to said enquiry was submitted on 15‑5‑2000. It is also pertinent to note that enquiry, dated 15‑5‑2000 could not be considered a valid enquiry pertaining to assessment years 1995‑96, 1996‑97 and 1997‑98. Tampering with the record by changing dates would also lead to the conclusion that all along someone has been acting fidely. In the nutshell, one can safely concluded that the Assessing Officer did not have any other valid basis except the so called enquiry report relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

7. In light of above discussion as well as the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order which is hereby maintained. The departmental appeals being without any merits are hereby dismissed.

C.M.A./944/Tax (Trib.)Appeals dismissed.