I.T.A. No. 1244/KB of 2005, decided on 28th January, 2006. VS I.T.A. No. 1244/KB of 2005, decided on 28th January, 2006.

2006 P T D (Trib.) 827

[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]

Before S. A. Minam Jafri, Accountant Member

I.T.A. No. 1244/KB of 2005, decided on 28/01/2006.

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S.13 (1)(d)---Addition---Permission---Approval---Addition made under S.13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that mandatory approval had not been obtained.

(2005) 92 Tax 95 (Trib.) rel.

Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant.

Ghulam Bashir Memon for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th January, 2006.

ORDER

S. A. MINAM JAFRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).-Appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee. Principally appellant has taken up following issues before this Tribunal.

* That the CIT(A) has self admitted that permission had been granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 65 instead of approval which is not sustainable in law.

* That the CIT(A) has accepted that the addition made under section 13(1)(d) is unreasonable and instead of deleting the addition under said section he has set aside the case for de novo assessment which is against the settled law.

* That the CIT has erred in setting aside. a case after accepting that the case law cited by the A.R. of the appellant fully applies in the instant case which is against the verdict held by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. Brief facts depict that an assessment has been framed and addition made under section 13(1)(d) for undeclared purchase of Margalla Suzuki in 1994 for Rs.3,22,000. The learned CIT(A) set aside the addition. Such treatment has given rise to appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Divergent views from both the sides have been heard. Perusal of the assessment order depict that "assessment order mentions assessment finalized after consultation with worthy IAC Sukkur Range Sukkur."

4. From the above narration it is evident that mandatory approval has not been obtained. In the circumstances I derive guidance of this Tribunal's decision reported as (2005) 92 Tax 95 (Trib.). The order of A learned CIT(A) is vacated and the addition made under section 13(1)(d) at Rs.3,22,000 is hereby deleted.

5. Appeal succeeds as indicated above.

C.M.A./23/Tax (Trib.)????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.