M.A. No. 944/LB of 2006, decided on 11th December, 2006. VS M.A. No. 944/LB of 2006, decided on 11th December, 2006., 2007 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 2206 (2006)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX 2001)---

----S.221---Rectification of mistake---Application for rectification on the ground that confirmation of deletion of addition on account of sale promotion expenses was discriminatory---Validity---Appellate Tribunal could not recall its own order for fresh adjudication as it was not empowered under the provisions of Income Tax Law or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules to do so---No mistake apparent from record or floating on surface of the order wherein proper findings had been recorded on the issue of discount getting support from the order of the First Appellate Authority---Request of revenue was not entertained and miscellaneous application was rejected being devoid of merit.

S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R. for Appellant.

Sirajuddin Khalid for Respondent.

ORDER

The titled miscellaneous application has been moved by the Revenue for recall of the Tribunal's order dated 26-62006 passed in M.A. (AG) No.562 and I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005 on the following grounds : ---

(1) The learned ITAT, Lahore has erred in confirming the decision of learned C.I.T.(A), Multan whereby addition of Rs.2,672,716 made on account of sales promotion expenses paid to non IATA agent was deleted.

(2) The finding of the learned ITAT is discriminatory on the same issue.

(3) The mistake is apparent from record hence liable to rectification under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance.

2. The learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue agitated against order of this Tribunal as per grounds. On the other hand, the learned A.R. for the assessee-defendant supported the order of this Tribunal and further stated that in the prayer the Revenue has requested that order of the learned Tribunal in M.A.(AG) No.562/LB :of 2005 and I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005, dated 20-6-2006 for the assessment year 2002-03 may kindly be recalled and appeal may be adjudicated on merit in the interest of revenue/justice.

3. We have heard both the sides and perused the available records. So far as the arguments of learned D.R. are concerned we do not find any force in the same. On the contrary the arguments of the learned A.R. carry considerable force and weight as this Tribunal cannot recall its own order for fresh adjudication as it is not empowered under the provisions of Income Tax Law or ITAT Rules to do so. Further we have noticed that on merits even otherwise there is no mistake apparent from record or floating on surface of this Tribunal's earlier order in I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005 (assessment year 2002-03) dated 26-6-2006 wherein proper findings have by recorded on the issue of discount getting support from the order of the learned C.I.T.(A), Multan Zone, dated 8-6-2005. In view of this situation the request of the Revenue on both the scores being devoid of any merit cannot be entertained and, therefore, rejected. The miscellaneous application filed by the department being devoid of any-merit stands rejected.

C.M.A./91/Tax(Trib.)Application rejected.