W.T.As. Nos. 1137/LB and 1138/LB of 2000, decided on 24th November, 2001. VS W.T.As. Nos. 1137/LB and 1138/LB of 2000, decided on 24th November, 2001., 2006 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 804 (2001)

Per Syed Nadeem Saqlain, Judicial Member; Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh, Judicial Member, agreeing---

(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S.17(1)(a) & (b)---Wealth escaping assessment---Issuance of notice under wrong provision of law i.e. under S.17(1)(a) instead of under S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---First Appellate Authority set aside the case for the reason that on 29-9-1998 the Assessing Officer sent a letter for permission from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner to reopen the case whereas show-cause notice under S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was served upon the assessee on 2-10-1998 and the assessee had not been provided sufficient opportunity of being heard---Assessee contended the assumption of jurisdiction was defective for the reason that notice was issued under wrong provision of law and any proceeding conducted in pursuance thereof was illegal and void ab initio and could not be sustainable in the eye of law---Assessing Officer erred in law while issuing notice under S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 since it was not attracted in the case of assessee because the case of the assessee was covered by S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---If Assessing Officer had any definite information about the escapement of Wealth Tax then he should have issued a notice under S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 requiring him to give all the relevant information---Validity---Assessing Officer sought the permission to invoke S.17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 without waiting for the reply from the assessee despite the fact that the First Appellate Authority showed his astonishment and displeasure about the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer and observed that "this state of affairs was not sustainable in law as the letter for permission to reopen the 'case was sent well before the service of show-cause notice issued under S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963"---After observing such flagrant violation of legal provision and holding it to be against the law, the First Appellate Authority proceeded to set aside the case and did not annul the assessment proceedings conducted by Assessing Officer---Both the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable in the eye of law which were vacated by the Appellate Tribunal being without jurisdiction having not been complied with the provisions of law.

1992 PTD Note 369 at p.398 and 1985 PTD (Trib.) 178 rel. 2002 PTD (Trib.) 168 and 2002 PTD (Trib.) 2276 ref.

(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)(a) & (b)---Wealth escaping assessment---Application of the provisions---S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 would be attracted in a case where there was an escapement of assessment for the reason that the assessee had failed to file a return of his net wealth under S.14 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---While S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 would be applicable where the assessment had already been framed and the Assessing Officer gets any information with regard to escapement of income---Assessment already completed by the Department warranted the invocation of S.17(1)(b) and not S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.

Per Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh, Judicial Member agreeing with Syed Nadeem Saqlain, Judicial Member--

(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)(a) & (b)---Wealth escaping assessment---Incorrect citation of limb of statutory notice or mere breach of form or mere misquotation of a statutory provision---Effect---Invocation of S. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was a question of assumption of jurisdiction it could not be said that this was "mere breach of form" or failure to cite proper limb of statutory provisions or "misquotation of provisions of law".

(d) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)(a) & (b)---Wealth escaping assessment---Application of relevant provisions of law---Provision of S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 provided that if the Assessing Officer had, in consequence of any information in his possession, reasons to believe, notwithstanding that there had been no such omission or failure as referred to in cl. (a) of S.17(1) of the Act that the net wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any year, whether by reason of under assessment at too low a rate or otherwise---Section 17(1)(a) provided that where the assessment had already been made and certain information regarding escapement of income came into the possession of the Assessing Officer, only then S.17(1)(a) of the Act shall be invoked.

(e) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)(a)(b) & (c)---Wealth escaping assessment---Legislature had purposely categorized three clauses (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) of S.17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963; otherwise only a single sentence could have been inserted by the legislature to cover up all the eventualities referred to in S.17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Purport and tenor behind classifying such categories was that the Assessing Officer should' be mindful and decisive about the case, which he was going to re-open---Section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had made it clear that Assessing Officer was under legal obligation to examine whether this was a case of understatement or escaped assessment or assessed at too low a rate---Such action would evaluate whether the Assessing Officer, while invoking the provisions of S.17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had applied his mind to the facts of the case in its proper perspective.

(f) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)---Wealth escaping assessment---Law did not permit to re-open the case on account of wavering mind.

(g) Interpretation of statutes---

----Where the legislature had intended to do a certain act under the law that should have been done accordingly and violation thereof was not sustainable in law.

Per Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member--[Minority view].

(h) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----S. 17(1)(a) & (b)---Wealth escaping assessment-Issuance of notice under wrong provision of law i.e. under S.17(1)(a) instead of under S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Validity---Notice under S.17(1)(b) was required to be issued as this was a case of "under-assessment" and not "escapement"---Assessing Officer had indeed "erred" in issuing notice under S.17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 but this mistake did not completely oust his jurisdiction under S.17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---No prejudice had been caused to assessee by issuance of notice under S.17(1)(a) instead of under S.17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 as First Appellate Authority had already set aside the order of Assessing Officer thereby providing the assessee an opportunity to tender explanation with regard to liabilities claimed and the embargo imposed by S.2(16)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Mere incorrect citation of "limb" of S.17(1) could not invalidate assessment proceedings.

(1970) 21 Tax 71 (Trib.); 1985 PTD (Trib.) 255; (1971) 24 Tax 183 and 1991 PTD 217 rel.

Zafar Shah, F.C.A. for Appellant.

Mehboob Alam, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th November, 2001.

ORDER

SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---Titled two appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the impugned order, dated 17-2-2000 passed by the learned CIT(A) Zone-V, Lahore. Following grounds have been pressed at the time of hearing by the learned A.R.

(a) That assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner is without lawful jurisdiction hence liable to be annulled.

(b) That without prejudice to the above grounds, jurisdiction assumed under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 without prior approval, is illegal.

(c) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax and W/Tax, Appeals Zone-V, Lahore is not justified in setting aside the assessment unlawfully re-opened under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that original assessment in this case was made on 11-6-1996 at the total net wealth of Rs.25,47,462 for the assessment year 1994-95 and Rs.12,94,062 for the assessment year 1995-96. At the time of original -assessment liabilities of Rs.19,82,538 and Rs.35,05,938 respectively for the above two years were allowed. Subsequently, both the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer were reopened under section 17 of the Act with the observation that the assessee was not entitled for the allowance of liabilities under the law. According to the Assessing Officer an information received from Citibank was called for wherein it was revealed that the loan was taken against the residential Property No.46-A, Ahmad Block, NGT, Lahore and this property was in the name of Mrs. Farrakh Qaisar who is the co-borrower and the primary borrowed is Mr. Jalil Qaisar. It was also observed by the Assessing Officer that the liability of loan was not allowable because collateral against this loan was a residential house which was not offered for the purposes of wealth tax. On appeal the case was set aside by the learned first appellate authority for the reason that on 29-9-1998 the Assessing Officer sent a letter for permission from the IAC to reopen the case whereas show-cause notice under section 17(1)(a) was served upon the assessee on 2-10-1998. It was also observed that the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. Being aggrieved with the impugned order the assessee has preferred these appeals.

3. Both the parties have been heard and relevant orders perused. The learned A.R. of the assessee has vehemently argued the case and right from the outset he submitted that assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was defective for the reason that notice was issued under wrong provision of law, any proceeding conducted by him in pursuance thereof were illegal and void ab initio and cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. He contended that the Assessing Officer erred in law while issuing notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 to the assessee since it was not attracted in the case of the assessee because the case of the assessee is covered by section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act. He submitted that if the Assessing Officer had any definite information about the escapement of the wealth tax in respect of the assessee then he should have issued a notice under section 17(1)(b) requiring him to give all the relevant information. But in the present case neither the Wealth Tax Officer has given reasons for re-assessment of the assessee nor he has served to the assessee with the statutory notice which he is bound to do under the law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon a judgment of Tribunal reported as 1992 PTD 369 at Page 398. For the convenience of reference, the paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"What the petitioner is required to disclose are the facts and not

the law. The petitioner is to disclose the facts and it is for the Wealth Tax Officer to apply the law. If, on an appropriate application of law, the value of the shares as disclosed has to be altered, then the Wealth Tax Officer would be justified in doing so. But it would not mean that, if, the correct law has not been applied though material facts have been given, then because the Wealth Tax Officer has not applied the correct law, a notice under section 17(1)(a) is to be issued. In our opinion, for not applying the correct law and, thereafter, correctly determining the value of the unquoted shares, the Wealth Tax ,Officer may have been justified in invoking the provisions of section ,I7(1)(b) but there would be no occasion to apply section 17(1)(a)."

4. He further argued that even the requisite permission sought from the IAC was also not in accordance with the law. In this respect he drew our attention to the observation made by the learned first appellate authority in his impugned order that notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act was issued on 26-9-1998 whereas the assessee received this notice on 30-9-1998 and the assessee was required to submit explanation by 2-10-1998. However, the Assessing Officer sent a letter on 29-9-1998 to the IAC wherein the permission for reopening of the case was sought while reply to the notice issued to the assessee was still awaited till 2-10-1998. In furtherance of his submission, he asserted that where the mandatory provisions of law has not been complied with, the learned first appellate authority will not be considered to be legally justified to set aside the case, the assessee would be liable to be annulled. In this respect he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal reported as 1995 PTD (Trib.) 178. In the supra case where an addition under section 13(1)(d) was made, the learned AAC set aside the assessment assessee's holding that no specific opportunity has been given. However, on appeal contention that assessment should have been annulled instead of being set aside was accepted by the Tribunal.

5. The learned D.R. on the other hand controverted the arguments advanced by the learned A.R.

6. Arguments heard and relevant orders perused along with the precedent judgment cited at the bar., After giving anxious consideration to the assertion made by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the learned A.R. carry weight. Clearly section 17(1)(a) and 17(l)(b) envisage two different situations. It would not be out of place to reproduce both of the above subsections which are as under:--

"(17) Wealth Escaping assessment: (1) If the Deputy Commissioner:

(a) has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his net wealth under section 14 for any assessment or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, the wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, whether by reason of underassessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise; or

(b) has, in consequence of any information in his possession, reason to believe, notwithstanding that there has been no such omission or failure as is referred to in clause (a), that the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any year, whether by reason of underassessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise; "

7. Perusal of both parts of the section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act shows that section 17(1)(a) would be attracted in a case where there is an escapement of assessment for the reason that the assessee has failed to file a return of his net wealth under section 14. While section 17(1)(b) would be applicable where the assessment has already been framed and C the Assessing Officer gets any information with regard escapement of income. Obviously, in the instant case, the assessment has already been completed by the Department which, therefore, warranted the invocation of section 17(1)(b) and not section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance. The judgment reported as 1992 PTD Note 369 at page 398 supra is applicable on all fours on the case in hand before us.

8. Similarly, the judgment of the Tribunal reported as (1984) 50 Tax 44 (Trib.) wherein the ratio desidendi laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and reported as PLD 1964 SC 410 was followed observing that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of statute entail annulment of the impugned judgment and not setting aside the case as it was done by the learned first appellate authority in the present case. It is also worth noting that the Assessing Officer sought the permission to invoke the section 17 without waiting for the reply from the assessee despite the fact that the learned first appellate authority showed his astonishment and displeasure about the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer and observed that "this state of affairs is not sustainable in law as the letter for permission to reopen the case was sent well before the service of show-cause notice issued under section 17(1)(a)" We are also at loss to understand that after observing such flagrant violation of legal provision and holding it to be against the law, the learned first appellate authority still proceeded to set aside the case and did not annul the assessment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer as held by the superior authorities through different judgments.

9. In the light of arguments advanced by the learned AR as well as judgment cited at bar, we are of the considered view that both the orders passed by the learned lower officers are not sustainable in the eye of law; hence we vacate the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate authority and the assessment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer being without jurisdiction having not complying with the provision of law.

As per Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member, Contra.---I have examined the order written by my learned brother. He has held that the order of the DCWT under section 16(5), dated 30-4-1999 is without jurisdiction as return of net wealth has been wrongly requisitioned by invoking the provisions of section 17(1)(a) instead of section 17(1)(b).

2. In my humble opinion, "mere breach of form" in issuance of notice or failure to cite proper "limb" of a statutory provision (in this case section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963) or misquotation of a statutory provision cannot invalidate proceedings as held in (1970) 21 Tax 71 (Trib.), 1985 PTD (Trib.), (1971) 24 Tax 183 (H.C. Ind.) 255 and 1991 PTD 217.

3. In the case presently before us the DCWT reopened the already completed assessment proceedings as he had found that liabilities had been claimed on both years without matching citation of asset. There can be no doubt that in such a situation reopening is fully justified in view of the express provisions of section 2(16)(ii) reproduced hereunder:

(16) "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate 'value of all the debts owned by the assessee on the valuation date other than

(i) debts which under section 6 are not to be taken into account; and

(ii) debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred in relation to any asset in respect of which wealth-tax is not payable under this Act;

4. Prima facie, matching assets in respect of the liabilities claimed have not been offered for levy of wealth tax. That being so, reopening is fully in order and notice under section 17(1)(b) was required to be issued as this is a case of "underassessment" and not "escapement." The DCWT has indeed "erred" in issuing notice under section 17(1)(a) but this mistake does not, in my opinion, completely oust his jurisdiction under section 17(1) and authoritative opinion in terms of case - law cited Supra supports my view on the matter. Of course it would have been a different matter if the DCWT had issued notice say under section 14 of the Wealth Tax Act. In the present case the DCWT has correctly invoked section 17(1) of the Act but has failed to cite the proper "limb" of the section i.e. clause (b). At best this can invalidate the ex parte action taken under section 16(5) and warrant recall of that order so as to provide the assessee with another opportunity to tender explanation regarding liabilities claim and comply with the terms of statutory notice. That opportunity has already been given to the assessee as the 'CIT(A) has set aside the assessment of the DCWT.

5. Thus what is to be seen here is whether any prejudice has been caused to the assessee as a result of the issuance Of, notice under section 17(1)(a) instead of section 17(1)(b). In my opinion no prejudice whatsoever is caused as the CIT(A) has already set aside the DCWT's order thereby providing the assessee an opportunity to tender explanation with regard to liabilities claim and the embargo imposed by section 2(16)(ii) of the WT Act. Therefore mere incorrect citation "limb" of section 17(1) cannot invalidate assessment proceedings.

6. That being so, I will maintain the CIT(A) setting aside of the DCWT's order as to give the assessee a further opportunity to explain his position on the pertaining to claim of liabilities without citation of matching assets.

7. As a difference of opinion has arisen in this case the matter is required to be referred to a third member by the Chairman ITAT:

The following questions are formulated for reference;

(1) "Whether incorrect citation of "limb" of a statutory provision or "mere breach of form" or "mere misquotation of a statutory provision" can warrant annulment of assessment proceedings?"

(2) "Whether violation of the terms of section 2(16)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act necessarily mandates reopening of an already completed assessment?"

(3) "Whether liability claimed in a wealth tax return without citation of matching asset constitutes 'definite information' warranting action under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?"

After examination of question framed by my learned brother, I feel that only question No. 1 is relevant which needs clarification while, the remaining two questions are not related to these appeals, hence question No. 1 may be taken up for opinion of the third Member.

As per directions of the Honourable Chairman, the question for seeking opinion of third Member is re-framed as under:--

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appeals of the assessee ought to have been accepted or rejected?"

As per Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh, Judicial Member, Concld.--I had the privilege to go through two separate orders rendered by the two learned Members, the one, Syed Nadeem Saglain, the Judicial Member and the other Mr. Muhammad Munir Qureshi, the Accountant Member in the present case. Briefly reiterated the facts are that the already completed assessment in this case was re-opened by the DCWT by invoking the provisions of section 17 at the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and a notice under section 17(1)(a) was issued. Consequently the re-assessment finalized by the ACIT was challenged before the Appeal Commissioner , who set aside the same with the direction to reframe the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On further appeal, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee before the Bench that as the notice was issued under wrong provision of law, any proceedings initiated by the DCWT in pursuance thereof was illegal and void ab initio and cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the order passed by the ACIT under section 16(5) may be annulled/cancelled. The learned Judicial Member after appreciating the relevant provisions of law and also the ratio decidendi in the judgments delivered by the appellate Courts in other cases came, to the conclusion that the assessment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer under section 17(1)(a) instead of under section 17(l)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act were without lawful jurisdiction having not complied with the correct provisions of law. The learned Judicial Member accordingly vacated the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate authority. On the other hand, the learned Accountant Member showed his disagreement with this contention and recorded a dissenting note as a result thereof the following three questions were originally formulated by him:--

(1) "Whether incorrect citation of "limb" of a statutory prevision or "mere breach of form" or "mere misquotation of a statutory provisions" can warrant annulment of assessment proceedings?

(2) "Whether violation of the terms of section 2(16)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act necessarily mandates of an already completed assessment?"

(3) "Whether liability claimed in a wealth tax return without citation of matching assets constitutes 'definite information' warranting action under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963? "

Subsequently on direction of the Honoufable Chairman only one question is referred to me for seeking opinion, which is also being re-produced hereunder: --

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appeals of the assessee ought to have been accepted or rejected?"

9. After deliberating on the rival arguments as well as the case-law cited before me such as (2001) 84 Tax 189 (Trib.) = 2002 PTD (Trib.) 168, 2002 PTD (Trib.) 2276 and (1992) 65 Tax 58 (H.C. Ind.), I decline to agree with the findings recorded by the learned Accountant Member in his proposed order. Coming to the first question of the learned Accountant Member, the assessment cannot be cancelled on account of incorrect citation of limb of statutory notice or mere breach of form or mere misquotation of a statutory provision. According to the learned Accountant Member no illegality has been committed by the DCWT requiring filing a return of net wealth by invoking the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act instead of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act. According to him this is "mere breach of form" in issuance of notice or failure to cite proper limb of a statutory notice or "misquotation" of a statutory provision, which cannot invalidate the proceedings, and a reference in this regard has been made to four cases mentioned supra to supports his observations.

10. I do not subscribe to the observations made by the learned Accountant Member in this regard. There is no cavil to this proposition that invocation of section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is a question of assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, it cannot be held that this was "mere breach of form" or failure to cite proper limb of statutory provisions of "misquotation of statutory provisions of law". Iii fact, section 17 enunciates three eventualities whereby the DCWT assumes jurisdiction to issue a notice under this section. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 envisages that if the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his net wealth under section 14 for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year whether by reason of understatement or assessment at too a low rate or otherwise. It means that this clause would attract in a situation where the assessee has failed to file return of his net wealth under section 14. This provision is not applicable in the present case. Coming to clause (b) of subsection (1) of this section it says that if the D.C. has in consequence of any information in his possession, reason H to believe, notwithstanding that there has been no such omission or failure as has referred to in clause (a), that the net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any year, whether by reason of under-assessment at to low a rate or otherwise. This Clause spells out that where the assessment has already been made and certain information regarding escapement of income comes into the possession of the DCWT, only then this clause shall be invoked. So far as clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 16 is concerned, this is not relevant for the purpose of this case; hence is not being discussed hereunder.

11. Coming to the facts of the case, clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 attracts to the facts of the present case because the assessment has already been made in the instant case. Actually, the legislature has purposely categorized three clauses (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) of section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. Otherwise, only a single sentence could have been inserted by the legislature to cover up all the eventualities referred to in the said section. The purport and the tenor behind classifying such categories is that the Assessing Officer should be mindful and decisive about the case, which I he is going to re-open. As is evident from section 17(1) this is the Assessing Officer who is under legal obligation to look into as to whether this is a case of understatement or escaped assessment or assessed at too a low rate: In fact this act would evaluate that the Assessing Officer, while invoking the provisions of section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act has applied his mind to the facts of the case in its proper perspective.

The law does not permit to re-open the case on account of wavering mind. There are quite a number of judgments of the appellate Courts out of which some have been quoted by the learned Judicial Member in his proposed order wherein it. has been held that where the legislature has intended to do a certain act under the law that should have K been done accordingly and violation thereof is not sustainable in law. This issue has been elaborately discussed by the learned J.M. besides appreciating the law in his proposed order, therefore, I have no other alternative except to hold that failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of law would certainly entail annulment of the assessment order which should have not been set aside as has been done by the learned Appeal Commissioner in the instant case. Since the order passed by the learned Judicial Member is well-reasoned and well-based, therefore, agreeing with his views I would hold that the impugned assessment order has been passed in flagrant violation of legal provisions and also holds the same to be against the law.

12. Resultantly, the Appeal Commissioner's order would stand vacated and restored that of the Assessing Officer.

13. Hence the assessee's appeals are accepted.

C.M.A./480/TaxAppeals accepted.