Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss.13(1)(aa) & 136---Appeal---Maintainability---Question of law-- Assessing Officer made an addition in the declared income of assessee on account of unexplained investment---Appellate Authority deleted the addition but Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially maintained the deletion---Plea raised by the Income Tax authorities was that the Appellate Authorities were not justified in deleting the additions made under S.13(1)(aa) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Appellate Authority deleted the entire addition on the basis of general observations---In the view of the Tribunal the Appellate Authority neither considersed the credit nor any explanation was offered to the authority, therefore, to that extent the addition was restored---From such findings of fact no question of law hard arisen unless it could be established that either the observations were not supported from record or else the Tribunal reached a. conclusion which was against the record---High Court refused to entertain the question---Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th November, 2003.

ORDER

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.----In this further appeal under, section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-B, Lahore claims that following question of law arises out of the impugned order of the, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore dated 21-10-1998:--

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) Zone-V, Lahore was justified to delete the addi tions made by the Assessing Authority under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and further the learned ITAT was justified to confirm the same by dismissing the Departmental Appeal.

2. The respondent/assessee is a registered firm and during the relevant period derived income from catering business. As against the declared income of Rs.80,000 for the year, 1991-92 an assessment was framed-at total income of Rs.9,44,794 which; inter alia included an addition of Rs.3,22,245 made, under section 13(1)(aa) of the late Ordinance.

3. On appeal learned First Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (Appeals) Lahore deleted the aforesaid addition made on account of unexplained investment. On departmental appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal; however, allowed partial relief inasmuch as the deletion of addition to the extent of Rs.1,25,400 claimed as credit was maintained on account of absence of an explanation put forth before the authorities below by the assessee. Rest of the deletion was maintained. Hence this further appeal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. The issue if part of the addition made under section 13(1)(aa) on account of unexplained investment was supported from the material on record and the rest, of it was not hardly gives rise to a question of law to be considered by this Court. The learned Tribunal found that the first appellate forum deleted the entire addition on the basis of general observations. In their view the learned CIT (Appeals) did not consider the credit of Rs.1,25,400 nor any explanation was offered to him. Therefore, to that extent the departmental appeal was accepted and the addition was restored under the said provisions of the Ordinance. From these findings no question of law, can be said to have arisen unless it can be established that either these observations were not supported from the record or else the Tribunal reached a conclusion which was against the record. None of the two situations being present, in the case, we will refuse to entertain the question.

5. Dismissed in limine.

M.H./C-25/LPetition dismissed.