Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 16(5)‑‑‑Assessment‑‑‑Finalization of assessment before the date fixed for hearing‑ ‑‑Assessment was finalized seven days before the date fixed for hearing‑‑‑First Appellate Authority after perusal of the record and considering the arguments of the assessee found the assessment order as illegal and annulled the assessments and the same was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.

I.T.As. Nos. 4662 and 4663/LB of 1991‑92 ref.

Naseer Amed, D.R. for Appellant.

Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th August, 2002.

ORDER

JAVED TAHIR BUTT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).--‑‑‑These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1998‑99, 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on the following common ground:‑‑‑

"That the learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified to annul the assessments with the observation that notice for hearing was issued. on 11‑6‑2001 for compliance on 18‑6‑2001 but the assessment was completed ex parte under section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act; 1963 on 11‑6‑2001, because the same was merely a clerical mistake on order‑sheet whereas actually the assessment was finalized on 30‑6‑2001 and on the same date the case was entered in the D.C.R."

2. Brief facts of the case are that a consolidated order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the above mentioned three years under section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and net wealth of the assessee was determined at Rs.7,967,538, Rs.8,187,738 and Rs.8,505,752 against declared wealth of Rs.2,590,538, Rs.2,510,538 and Rs.2,525,832 in the assessment years 1998‑99, 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 respectively. In appeal before the CIT (Appeals) it was contended by the assessee that as per assessment order last notice was issued on 11‑6‑2001 for compliance on 18‑6‑2001 but the assessment was finalized on 11‑6‑2001 i.e. seven days before the date fixed for hearing and that order is not maintainable. A The CIT (Appeals) after perusal of the record and considering the arguments of the assessee found the assessment order as illegal and annulled all these assessments.

3. We have heard both sides and also perused the relevant record available on file in the assessment order, the Assessing. Officer has himself mentioned the issuance of notice under section 16(2), dated 11‑6‑2001 for compliance on 18‑6‑2001. The A.R. of the assessee also produced a copy of the demand notice which clearly indicates the date of order as 11‑6‑2001. Thus, there is no doubt that the assessments were framed on a date which is seven days earlier than the date fixed for hearing before the Assessing Officer. The contention of the department is that the date of finalization of assessments i.e. 11‑6‑2001 is clerical mistake whereas the assessments were finalized actually on 30‑6‑2001 (sic) entries in the demand and collection register. The arguments of the Revenue are nothing but an attempt to cover up its mistakes. The assessment order and the demand notice is dated 11‑6‑2001 and subsequent entry in demand and collection register will not change the validity of the date of order. It has been held in earlier judgments of this Tribunal that an order passed on a date earlier than the date of compliance is illegal and liable to be cancelled vide I.T.As. Nos.4662 and 4663/LB of 1991‑92, dated 20‑5‑1996. In the LTA.T. order cited supra the I.T.A.T. observed:‑‑‑

"It has once again been challenged before us that the assessment is illegal having been completed on a day for which there was no notice. The learned D.R. could not satisfy us as to the legality of the assessment which had been finalized on 25‑8‑1990 one day before the case was fixed for hearing. It should have been cancelled by CIT (Appeals) instead of setting it aside and we, therefore, cancel the same the assessment being illegal. "

In view of the above mentioned judgment of I.T.A7. the CIT (Appeals) was justified in holding the order as illegal and annulling the same. The order of the CIT (Appeals) for the three years under appeal is upheld.

4. The departmental appeals fail.

C.M.A./494/Tax (Trib.)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.