Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss.132, 52/86 & 50(4)---Decision in appeal---Setting aside of assessment in a summary manner without adjudicating all grounds of appeal ---Validity---Assessee had raised many grounds before First Appellate Authority but First Appellate Authority had preferred to pass a summary order without discussing grounds of appeals, various facts in issues and their legal implication---Such summary order was neither appreciated nor approved because recording of findings in second appeal without recording of any finding at First Appellate Forum shall deprive either of the parties from one forum of the appeal---Final assessment changes when the. finding on each and every fact in issue was recorded specifically and separately---First Appellate Authority had not recorded specific findings qua the various issues raised by the assessee - in its grounds, of appeal---Ground of limitation raised had not, been answered-- Order of First Appellate Authority was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal with the direction to pass a speaking order on each and ever issues.

Naushad Ali Khan, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. NOs.217-IB to 220-IB of 2003).

Kashif Aziz Jehangiri, A.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As Nos.217-IB to 220-IB of 2003).

Kashif Aziz Jehangiri,. A.C.A for Appellant (in I.T.As Nos.227-IB to 230-IB of 2003).

Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.227-111 to 230-IB of 2003).

Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2003.

ORDER

MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---These eight cross-appeals, four filed by the assessee and four by the Department against the consolidated order dated 8-2-2003 recorded by the learned CIT (A), Zone-I, Islamabad for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1998-99 on the ground that he was not justified to set aside the assessment made under section 52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessee has taken ten grounds, most of them are argumentative and main grievance of the assessee on factual side is that learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the, issues raised before him particularly that of the limitation as the proceedings carried out by the Assessing Officer were time-barred. The learned CIT(A) has also not adjudicated upon the assessee's contention that sale and lease. bank transaction did not attract withholding tax under the provision of section 50(4) of the Ordinance being financing transaction in nature. Furthermore, no finding has been recorded qua the assessee's ground that purchase of a capital asset on which depreciation is claimed under Third Schedule did, not attract withholding tax under the provisions of the repealed Ordinance. More so, additional tax has also been wrongly charged.

2. We have heard Mr. Kashif Aziz Jehangiri, ACA the learned AR of the assessee and Mr. Naushad Ali Khan, the learned DR who appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessee, a public limited company, derives income from the business of leasing. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for not-deducting the withholding tax under section 50(4) for the purchases made by the assessee-company in different assessment years. The assessee contended in his defence that no withholding tax was liable to be deducted under the sale as being purely financial arrangements. The learned CIT(A) has recorded the findings as under:--

"I have considered the arguments, and note that the contentions of the AR of the appellant merits consideration. The Assessing Officer is therefore, directed to verify the fact of filing of tax returns and tax paid by the respective taxpayers and if confirmed, the additional tax under section 86 accepted as leviable by the AR during hearing be charged from the date of default to the date of payment of the tax on such transactions by the respective taxpayers. The Assessing Officer is also directed to complete this exercise for all the years after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant to produce evidence in support thereof and thereafter the order be modified in accordance with facts on merit and under the law."

4. After hearing the respective contentions of the parties and perusal of the record we have looked into the matter and find that assessee has raised so many grounds before the learned CIT(A) mentioned above but the learned CIT(A) has preferred to pass a summary order without discussing grounds of appeals, various facts issues and their legal implication. We neither appreciate nor approve such a summary order because recording of findings in second appeal without recording of any finding at first appellate forum shall deprive either of -the party from one forum of the appeal. It has been observers numerous times that fate of final assessment changes when the finding on each and every facts in issue is recorded specifically and separately. The learned CIT(A) has not recorded specific findings qua the various issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeals. The order is silent on the point as to whether sale and lease bank transaction are financing transaction in nature and provisions of section 50(4) of the Ordinance can be attracted or not. The grounds of limitation raised by the assessee for different assessment years have not been answered by the learner CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we have been lest will) no alternative except to set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A), and again remand the case to him with the direction to pass .. speaking order on each and every issues specifically raised by the assessee in the light of latest Tribunal's order. He is asked, also to state clearly if any ground, not pressed before or now.

5. With these observations, the all of the cross-appeals are disposed of in the manner as indicated, above.

C.M.A./993/Tax(Trib)Order accordingly