W.T. As. Nos. 652/LB to 657/LB of 2006, decided on 5th May, 2007. VS W.T. As. Nos. 652/LB to 657/LB of 2006, decided on 5th May, 2007., 2007 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 2046 (2007)

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

----S.16(4)---Assessment---Finalization of single assessment order for all the years by referring as S.16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Validity---Assessment had been framed under S.16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act; 1963---Said provision of law was meant for calling for details and explanation on certain points if required---Revenue could. not make an assessment under S.16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Assessment could only be made under S.16(3) or 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Even on confronting it to Department, no explanation For it had been tendered, on this score too the assessment was not maintainable and had rightly been cancelled by the First Appellate Authority.

2006 PTD (Trib.) 987; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 388 and 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1014 ref.

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

----S.16(2)---Assessment---Non-service of notice---First Appellate Authority on perusal of assessment record round that notice under S.16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was never served as both the copies of it were found lying therein meaning thereby that, it remained un- served---Non-issuance of notice being Fatal, the assessment was not maintainable for all the years---Basis of Framing assessment were not approved, thus on merit it was not found as maintainable---Assessment was cancelled by the First Appellate Authority---Case-law cited fortified such Findings---By Following the judgments and orders, Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of First Appellate Authority.

(1991) 63 Tax (sic); 1990 PTD 389; 2007 PTD 20; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 517 and 2006 PTD 2814 ref.

Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant.

Siraj ud Din Khalid For Respondent.

ORDER

The titled appeals are directed against t6he single combined order dated 3-8-2006, solely to contest the cancellation of assessment framed for all the years by submitting various grounds on each of the basis, the single combined assessment order has been passed. The sections referred to in this order are of the refereed Wealth Tax Act, 1963.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to filing of these appeals are that by a single assessment order for all the years has been finalized by referring as the section 16(4) set aside for framing assessment on the identical basis for all the years. The assessment so framed was contested before the learned First Appellate Authority. The learned First Appellate Authority by placing reliance on orders of this Tribunal with citations as 2006 PTD (Trib.) 987, 2004 PTD (Trib.) 388 and 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1014 held the assessment as not maintainable and prior to such findings on examination of assessment record it has been noticed that the filing date of return for each assessment year as 15-6-1999 till assessment year 1998-99 and thereafter for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were 15-70-1999 and 25-11-2000, respectively. Secondly the learned First Appellate Authority on perusal of assessment record found that notice under section 16(2) was never served as both the copies of it were found lying therein meaning thereby that it remained un-served so by placing reliance on citations as (1991) 63 Tax (sic) and 1990 PTD 389 held non-issuance of notice under section 16(2) as fatal, so also declared the assessment as not maintainable for all the years on this score also. The basis of framing assessment were also not approved, thus on merit it was also not found as maintainable. Accordingly the assessment was cancelled, which in turn has brought the revenue in appeal in this Tribunal.

3. Before us the learned A.R. at the very outset has taken preliminary two objections on maintainability of appeals, firstly, commonly that the prescribed memo/form/Format of appeals have not been used and also drew our attention to it which are available in our appeal cover, secondly officer Filing appeal and also verifying the memo. of appeal is legally not competent for these two acts. The learned D.R. opposed these submissions and stressed that the prescribed memo. of appeal has been used, it is only own computer print out so is looking different, on the competency of officer filing to appeals it was submitting that now the concerned officer in I&P Whig is dealing with the wealth tax assessment work. The learned A.R. was informed told that the first objection even if found as correct even then it is rectifiable and is not to initiate the proceedings before us. As far as the filing and verification of appeals by the Income Tax Officer (I&P), the learned D.R. has submitted that wealth tax assessment work has been assigned to it. We overrule these preliminary objections and proceed further to deckle the common issues on merit keeping in view the pronouncements of the Honourable Superior Judiciary that the appeals be decided on merits instead of dismissal on purely technical grounds.

4. The learned D.R. has opposed the findings recorded at the first appeal stage but failed to support the submissions with any case law holding a view contrary to what has been relied upon by the learned First Appellate Authority.

5. The learned A. R. has further strengthened the impugned findings by quoting the following citations:---

(i) 2007 PTD 20 (Lahore High Court), (ii) 2005 PTD (Trib.) 517 (iii) 2006 PTD 2814 (Lahore High Court).

6. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the available record. The case law as cited before us has further fortified the impugned findings. So by respectfully following the judgments and orders quoted before us we are persuaded to uphold the impugned order.

7. Apart from the foregoing conclusion we have also observed that assessment has been framed under section 16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. A bare reading of this section shows that this provision of wealth tax law is meant for calling for details and explanation on certain points if required, hence the revenue could not make an assessment under this section of the Wealth Tax Act, 196.3. Assessment could only be made under section 16(3) or 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. Even on confronting it to Department, no explanation for it has been tendered. So on this score too the assessment impugned before the Tribunal are not maintainable and rightly been cancelled by the learned First Appellate Authority.

8. All the departmental appeals fail.

C.M.A./75/Tax(Trib.)Appeals dismissed.