I.T.As. Nos. 2480/LB to 2482/LB of 2005, decided on 2nd March, 2006. VS I.T.As. Nos. 2480/LB to 2482/LB of 2005, decided on 2nd March, 2006.
2007 P T D (Trib.) 322
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Judicial Member and Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal, Accountant Member
I.T.As. Nos. 2480/LB to 2482/LB of 2005, decided on 02/03/2006.
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----Ss, 221, 122(5) & 339---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.156, 80CC, 14(l) and First Sched., Part-I, Para CCCC and Second Sched., Part-III, Cl. (12)---C.B.R. Letter No. (4)(530)-TO-1/2002, dated 22-3-2004---Rectification of mistake---Assessment years 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1999-2000---Issuance of show-cause notice, dated 25-3-2003 for withdrawal of 90% rebate allowed through a rectified order, dated 18-7-2000 on the ground that the same had been allowed by mistake of law, by virtue of which 90% rebate allowed on the supply of engineering goods towards the international tenders were withdrawn---Cancellation of such orders by the First Appellate Authority---Validity---As the amendment in S. 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had been brought on statute book on June, 17 by virtue of Finance Act, 2003, therefore, it will start its voyage from the said date i.e. June, 17, 2003---Orders having been passed by the Taxation Officer under S.221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on 3-6-2003, same had rightly been declared as illegal, null and void and were correctly cancelled---No interference was made by the Appellate Tribunal and appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.
Vol. 8 No.4 Tax Forum 49; 2001 PTD 1525; Vol.9 No.3 Tax Forum 27 and 2005 PTD (Trib.) 1697 ref.
2006 PTD (Trib.) 1768 rel.
Javed Iqbal Rana and Dr. Ishtiaq, IAC for Appellants.
Zaeem-ul-Farooq for Respondent.
ORDER
Through these three appeals, the Department has objected to the A consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A), dated 21-3-2005 for the assessment years 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1999-2000 objecting to the cancellation of consolidated orders of the Taxation Officer for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 and the order passed by the Taxation Officer for the assessment year 1999-2000 under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the same date i.e. 3-6-2003.
For the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98, the allowance of 90% rebate on supply of engineering goods against international tenders while for the assessment year 1999-2000, the attribution and prorating of financial charges between sales against the international tenders sales and local sales are also the subject-matter of appeals.
Mr. Javed Iqbal Rana has appeared on behalf of the Department and has contended that there was no justification to declare the rectification orders for the assessment years under review i.e. 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, dated 3-6-2003 passed under section 221 of the new Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as illegal, null and void and to cancel orders keeping in view of treatment meted, out in appeal for the assessment year 1996-97, as each year had a separate entity and there is no principle of res judicata applied in the income tax proceedings. He has contended that on perusal of the rectified orders, the Taxation Officer found mistake apparent from record and he, therefore, adopting the legal provision in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee, has rectified the orders. Regarding the observations of the' learned CIT(A) that the same issue has already been upheld at the first appellate stage by the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 1996-97 and the Department did not prefer appeal before this Tribunal, Mr. Javaid Iqbal Rana has submitted that this issue was not adjudicated by the learned CIT(A), as it was contended on behalf of the assessee that rectification in this regard for the assessment year 1997-98 has already been made and consequently, the learned CIT(A) only made directions that the same treatment be accorded for the assessment year 1996-97 as well. According to learned DR, the directions to rectify the order of 1996-97 was based on the rectified order of 1997-98 and the learned CIT(A) has not commented upon regarding the order in accordance with the provisions of law or not. Regarding the other observation that the findings of the IAC has been violated, learned DR has submitted that mistake being apparent from record, it has nothing to do with the opinion of another office on the same issue which is not binding on the Taxation Officer. Regarding the appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000, learned DR has contended that assessment was rectified by the Taxation Officer not prorating unidentifiable expense other than those related to exports inadvertently as only those expenses were excluded for, proration in the original order which were wholly, and exclusively incurred for exports. The other expenses which could not be bifurcated- as these relating to export sales and local sales remain unidentifiable and were to be prorated. He has contended that if total expenses less identifiable expenses relating to exports are to be attributed to local sales, then 100% of the expenses become identifiable, which is not the case as only those expenses are identifiable which relate to exports and remaining are to be prorated. He has, therefore, submitted that as the mistake was apparent from record, the Taxation Officer has rectified the order under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and there was no justification for cancelling the same.
Mr. Zaeem-ul-Farooq, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the assessee and is supporting the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A). He has strongly impugned order of the learned CIT(A). He has strongly asserted that the learned CIT(A) was fully justified to pass the order passed by him. Regarding 90% reduction in income tax liability on income derived from supply of engineering goods against international tenders for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98, it is submitted that the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 provided different rates of tax and liability for various different classes of income including presumptive income vide First Schedule (Rate of Income Tax) and simultaneously provided for "Exemption from Total Income", "Reduction in Tax Rates", "Reduction in Tax Liability" and "Exemption from Specific Provisions" vide Parts I, II, III and IV respectively of "The Second Schedule". Supply of goods against International Tenders has specifically been given the status of exports. He has contended that section 8000 stipulated that whole amount of sales proceed from export shall be deemed to be income and tax thereon shall be charged at the rates specified in the First Schedule, which is 0.5% of such deemed income vide para CCCC of Part I of the First Schedule. Section 14(1)/ 1979 allows reduction in tax liability which has been laid down in the Second Schedule. Part-III of the Second Schedule titled "Reduction in Tax Liabilities" reads as under:
"Incomes or class of incomes or persons or class of persons enumerated below, shall be allowed reduction in tax liability to the extent and subject to such conditions as are specified hereunder and according to Clause (12) "Reduction in lax on export of certain goods", subject to the provision of sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph A of Part IV of the First Schedule, the income tax and super tax payable in respect of income from export of engineering goods manufactured in Pakistan exported on or after the first day of July, 1992 specified in the table below shall be reduced by ninety per cent and deduction of tax under subsection 5(A) of section 50, in respect of such goods shall be made at the rate specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph CCCC of the First Schedule."
According to the learned counsel in the Table given, the relevant items are 13, 22 and 51. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that it is a settled principal of law that specific provision in a statute overrides the general provision. The rates of tax mentioned in para. CCCC of Part I of the First Schedule (0.5%) arc general provisions for export of all goods but the reduction in the above liability by 90% in case of the goods being engineering goods is a specific provision vide Part III of the Second Schedule, clause (12) (Reduction in tax liability). He has contended that from the above provision of law, it is abundantly clear that the liability of payment of tax at the rate specified in para. CCCC of the Part-I of the First Schedule (0.5%) is reduced by 90% on the facts of the instant case (being export of Engineering Goods). Learned counsel has pointed out that in the impugned assessment order, dated 3-6-2003, cancelled by the learned CIT(A) vide order, dated 21-3-2005, the Taxation Officer has malafidely wrongly reproduced the subsection 8000(3) deliberately omitting the opening words "where the assessee has no income other than the income referred to in subsection (1)" and the closing words "and he shall not be required to file the return of total income under section 55". This omission of the opening and the closing words have not been narrated intentionally and had the. same been written in the impugned/rectified order, the same could not have been passed being without legal footing. The non-naration of these words has completely changed the provision of law, As is evident from the correct wordings of this subsection, it is applicable to only those assessees, which have no income other than export and is therefore not applicable to the assessee as main substantial income is from local sales. Regarding the legal status of the proceedings in the impugned rectified order by the Taxation Officer, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been issued under section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. According to the learned counsel , it is a well settled law that provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cannot be invoked retrospectively but will only be enforceable prospectively. Reliance in this regard is placed on the C.B.R. letter No. (4)(530)-TO-1/2002, dated 22-3-2004 wherein, it has been laid down that "the provisions of section 122(5) cannot be invoked in this case as the new Ordinance came into force w.e.f. 1-7-2002 and couldn't be applied to the assessment order for the assessment year 2000-2001. Through this letter, the C.B.R. had circulated the decision of the President of Pakistan to all Regional Commissioners of Income Tax and Director General of LTU on the same issue. From perusal of this Circular, it is evident that it lays down that the new Ordinance came into force w.e.f. 1-7-2002 and could not be applied to the assessments before I-7-2002, Accordingly, no section of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is applicable before 1-7-2002 and this Ordinance cannot be applied retrospectively including provision under section 221. The contention is strongly supported by the provision of section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which says that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 would apply prospectively as a new law cannot be applied to any period prior to the date of its coming into force unless a specific saving provision is provided in the law and as there is no saving provision in section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, hence the order passed under section 221, on this score alone is not maintainable. He has also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court reported in Vol. 8 No.4 Tax Forum 49 wherein it has been held that "S.R.O. 633(1)/2002, dated 14-9-2002 (rescinded vide S.R.O. 608(I)12003, dated 24-6-2003) is ultra vires and accordingly there was no jurisdiction with the Taxation Officer of impugned rectification order, dated 3-6-2003 to initiate proceedings under the new Ordinance of 2001 in respect of cases finalized under the repealed Ordinance of 1979, in view of section 239 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001". He has, in this respect, submitted that the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in ,case reported as (2001) PTD 1525 has held that a new Ordinance cannot have retrospective effect to touch the completed assessments before the introduction of new statute. According to learned counsel, the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in case reported in Vol. 9 No.3 Tax Forum 27 has held that "the provision contained in subsection (5A) of section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 inserted with effect from 1-7-2003 is not retrospective in operation consequently the assessment finalized before 1-7-2003 cannot be reopened/revised/ amended in exercise of jurisdiction under the above provisions". He has contended that this Tribunal in its order reported as 2005 PTD (Trib.) 1697 has held that "a new law cannot he applied to any period prior to the date of its coming into force unless a specific saving provision in section 239 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for issuance of fresh notices having the characteristic of section 65 or section 66-A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the order passed under section 122(5) on this score, is therefore, not maintainable". He has argued that rectified order cannot be passed upon a previously already rectified order more so when all the facts and figures were available with the Taxation Officer at the time of passing the previous rectification order and no new mistake has been found by the present Taxation Officer which forced him to pass a further rectification order, thus, clearly negating the legal provision, that there was any apparent mistake of law in allowing 90% rebate. He has contended that the effect given by the Taxation Officer regarding 90% rebate against supply of engineering goods against the international tenders for the year, 1996-97 awarded by the learned CIT(A) through order, dated 18-1-2001. was given effect by the Taxation Officer on 23-9-2003 i.e. almost three years after passing of the order, dated 18-1-2001 of the learned CIT(A), six months after he has issued show cause notice, dated 25-3-2003 for withdrawing the rebate on the same issue for the previous years and almost after three months of the passing of the rectification order, dated 3-6-2003 withdrawing the rebate already allowed through a rectified order. He has contended that the above facts clearly establish that the department had not filed any appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A), dated 18-1-2001 which has thus attained finality and further that the same Taxation Officer on. the one hand is allowing a rebate of 90% after giving effect of the learned CIT(A) for the year 1996-97 and on the other hand, he is withdrawing the rebate of 90% already allowed through rectified orders for the years 1995-96 and 1997-98 by the impugned consolidated order, dated 3-6-2003. According to the learned counsel, the learned CIT(A) has rightly cancelled the order passed under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Regarding the appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000 apart from the above legal position, on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the learned CIT(A) has rightly observed that "I am of opinion that Taxation Officer has not applied his mind judiciously by double taxing the assessee". According to the learned counsel, as the Department in the grounds of appeal has not appealed against this part of the judgment of learned CIT(A), accordingly this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee. He has contended that without prejudice to his argument supra, it may be submitted that according to law only such P&L expenses have to be prorated between local sales or export sales which cannot be identified as relatable to export sale or local sale. Since an amount of Rs.3,274,547 of the financial charges was very clearly attributable to export sales exclusively, it cannot be lawfully included in the amount of P&L expenses to be proportionated between local sales and export sales. He has, in this respect, pleaded before us a following chart showing the bifurcation of profit and loss expenses:--
Total P & L Expenses
Rs. 105,465,056
??????????? |
??????????? |
??????????????????????????????????? __________________|________________________
??????????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????????????????? |
Financial Expenses??????????????????????????????????????????? Expenses other than
Financial Expenses
Rs.43,878,015???????????????????????????????????? Rs.61,587,041
??????????????????????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |??????????
??????????????????????? ________________|________?????????????????????????????????? ________________|________
??????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????? |?????????????????????????????????? |
Identifiable??????????????????? Balance??????????? Attributable to? Attributable to
Attributable to? Attributable to? Export Sales on??????????? Local Sales on
Export Sales???????????????? Local Sales?????????????????? Pro-rata basis?????????????? Pro-rata basis
Rs.3,274,547?????????????? Rs.40,603,468Rs.6,076,158?????????????? Rs,55,510,883
A???????????????????????????????? B????????????????????????????????? C???????????????????????????????? D
P & L Expenses Attributable to Export Sale = (A) + (C) =??????? Rs.9,350,705
P & L Expenses Attributable to Local Sale = (B) + (D) =????????????????????? Rs.96,114,351
Total??? =????????? Rs.105,465,056
Accordingly the P&L expenses chargeable to export sales and local sales are as under:--
EXPORT SALES
Identifiable financial expenses??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.3,274,547
Prorated other P & L expenses???????????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.6,076,158
Rs.9,350,705
LOCAL SALES
Identifiable financial expenses??????????????????????????????????????? Rs.40,603,468
Prorated other P & L expenses???????????????????????????????????? Rs.55,510,883
Rs. 96,114,351
Total P & L Expenses:????????????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.105,465,056
According to the learned counsel, the financial charges of Rs.3,274,547 attributable to export sales are more than sufficient for that transaction and there is no rationale or justification in diverting further financial expenses from financial expenses (Rs.40,603,468) incurred for local sales, by proportioning the financial expenses attributable to local sales only between local sales and export sales. He has submitted that this bifurcation of P & L A/c expenses between export sales and local sales vide first rectification order, dated 20-5-2002 passed under section 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by Deputy Commissioner is on correct basis and the bifurcation vide second impugned rectification order, dated 3-6-2003 passed under section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is an incorrect basis. According to the learned counsel, the learned CIT(A) has rightly cancelled the second rectification order, dated 3-6-2003.
We have heard the learned representatives from both the sides at length, perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and the orders of Taxation Officer passed under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. We have also perused the provisions of law, the case law and the documents placed before us by the learned representatives from both the sides.
Facts of the case for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 are that assessee filed income tax return for the assessment year 1995-96 in which the appellant claimed 90% rebate on tax applicable on supply against the .international tenders on account of the goods being Engineering Goods, available under clause (12) Part-III of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on goods supplied during the said assessment year, but this rebate was not allowed in the original assessment order, dated 28-2-1997. Being aggrieved of the same, the assessee filed an application of rectification of the said mistake and the Taxation Officer while disposing of the said application for rectification, rectified the said mistake and allowed 90% rebate under section 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 vide his order, dated 18-7-2000. Thereafter the assessment year 1996-97 came and in this year also, the assessee company supplied the Engineering Goods against the international tenders and 90% rebate was not given again. The assessee company filed an application for rectification which was still pending and the assessment year 1997-98 came and in this assessment year also, the assessee filed the claim of 90% rebate against the supply of Engineering Goods against the international tenders which was also not allowed. Again the assessee filed and application for rectification of the said mistake which was allowed vide a rectified order, dated 18-7-2000 under section 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. That by then, the assessee had tiled an Appeal against the assessment order passed by the Taxation Officer under section 62 for the years, 1996-97 and 1997-98 in which certain issues were agitated which included the refusal to award 90% rebate on international tenders against the supply of Engineering Goods. This appeal was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide order, dated 18-1-2001 through which, the said 90% rebate was allowed for the year 1996-97. The relevant para of the order is reproduced as follows:--
"The issue pertains to assessment year 1996-97 only. The appellant's grievance in nutshell is that export rebate is admissible @ 90% of the tax liability under clause (2) of part III of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance. He highlights the fact that for the assessment year 1997-98, the said relief has already been allowed through a rectification order, dated 18-7-2000. The Assessing Officer is directed to carry out necessary rectification for assessment year 1996-97 as well."
Against the above said order, no appeal was filed before any higher forum and thus the said order attained finality. On the same issue regarding the entitlement of 90% rebate on engineering goods was being conducted by the Inspecting Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax of the same Range and of the same Zone, on the instructions of Inspecting Audit Department of the Income Tax, Lahore vide report, dated 17-6-2002 wherein it was held that "the said rebate of 90% was rightly allowed under the legal provisions". The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced as under:--
"In the light of above discussed facts, in my opinion, passing of order under section 156 is on legal footing and rebate of 90% has rightly been allowed. Meaning thereby that provisions of section 66A are not attracted. In case, you differ with my opinion, it may be communicated to this office, so that, matter may be taken up with worthy CIT and Director (I&A) level for early disposal."
The Taxation Officer, despite all the above facts, issued show-cause notice, dated 25-3-2003 under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through which it was inquired that why the 90% rebate allowed to you through a rectified order, dated 18-7-2000 may not be with-drawn which was awarded to you by mistake of law and passed rectified order, dated 3-6-2003 by virtue of which 90% rebate allowed on the supply or Engineering Goods towards the international tenders were withdrawn for both the assessment years i.e. 1995-96 and 1997-98. The assessee objected to the above said rectified impugned order, dated 3-6-2003 on the following grounds before the learned CIT(A):--
"(a) That no rectified order can be passed upon a previously already rectified order more so when all the facts and figures were available with the taxation officer at the time of passing the previous rectification order and no new mistake has been found by the present taxation officer which forced him to pass a further rectification order, thus, clearly negating the legal provision, that there was any apparent mistake of law by allowing 90% rebate.
(b) That it is well settled law that the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cannot be invoked retrospectively will only be enforceable prospectively which was quite evident from very circular issued by the C.B.R. hearing No.S.R.O. 633(I)/ 2002, dated 14-9-2002 as also judgment of the Tribunal, dated 9-9-2002 in ITA No.6288/LB/ 1990 further and judgment reported as (1984) 49 Tax-34 (Crib.). On this very issue, reliance is being placed on a judgment passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore reported as 2001 PTD Page 1525 and above all reliance is placed on C.B.R. Letter No.(4)(530)TO-1/2002, dated 22-3-2004, wherein it has been staled that "the provisions of section 122(5) cannot be invoked in the case as the new Ordinance carne into force w.e.f. 1-7-2002 and could not be applied to the assessment order for assessment year before 1-7-2002. Through this letter, the C.B.R. had circulated the decision of the President of Pakistan to all Regional Commissioners of Income Tax and Director General of LTU on the same issue. From perusal of this very circular, it is evident that if one provision of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is not applicable before 1-7-2002 then not even a single provision of the said Ordinance can be invoked retrospectively including provision under section 221. The contention is strongly supported by the provision of section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which says that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 would apply retrospectively as new law cannot be applied to any period prior to the date of its coming into force unless a specific save provision is provided in the law and as there is no saving provision in section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for issuance of fresh notice having the characteristic of section 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and hence the order passed under section 221 on this score alone is also not maintainable."
The learned CIT(A) has cancelled the consolidated order for both the years. We have found that the effect given by the Taxation Officer regarding 90% rebate against supply of Engineering Goods against the international tenders for the year, 1996-97 awarded by the learned CIT(A) through order, dated 18-1-2001 was given effect by the Taxation Officer on 23-9-2003 i.e. almost three years of passing of the order, dated 18-1-2001 of the learned CIT(A); six months after he has issued show-cause notice, dated 25-3-2003 for withdrawing the rebate on the same issue for the previous years and almost after three months of the passing of the rectification order, dated 3-6-2003 withdrawing the rebate already allowed through a rectified order. We have further found that the department had not filed any appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A), dated 18-1-2001 which has thus attained finality and further that the same Taxation Officer on the one hand is allowing rebate of 90% after giving effect of the learned CIT(A) for the year 1996-97 and on the other hand, he is withdrawing the rebate or 90% already allowed through rectified orders for the years 1995-96 and 1997-98 by the impugned consolidated rectified order, dated 3-6-2003.
For the assessment year 1999-2000, the incorrect attribution and prorating of financial charges between sales against the international tenders sales and local sates through a rectified order, dated 3-6-2003 under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 rectifying any already rectified order, dated 20-5-2002 passed by the predecessor of the Taxation Officer under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is the subject-matter of the appeal. The assesses filed assessment return for the year 1999-2000 which was assessed by the then Taxation Officer through assessment order, dated 17-4-2002. In this order, the Taxation Officer wrongly commuted the proration of financial charges between the international tenders sales and local sales and thus the assessee was double taxed on account of financial charges. The assessee filed an application for rectification, dated 7-5-2002 on the grounds that the proration of P&L expenses for local sales have not been worked correctly because financial expenses attributable to export sales have been deducted doubly from the P&L expenses. After hearing the assessee's submission, the Taxation Officer rectified the mistake through a rectified order, dated 20-5-2002 under section 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Later on, a show cause notice under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, dated 20-3-2003 was issued by the Taxation Officer on the subject that the said rectification made by the previous Taxation Officer was incorrect and a mistake was committed by hint and order, dated 3-6-2003 was passed by virtue of which the relief granted through the previous rectified order, dated 20-5-2002 was withdrawn, which has now been cancelled by the learned CIT(A) against which this Appeal has been filed.
Apart from the above factual and legal position, we are further of the view that as the amendment in section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has been brought on statute book on June, 17 by virtue of Finance Act, 2003, therefore, it will start its voyage from the said date i.e. June 17, 2003 as has already been held by this Tribunal in many decisions, reliance in this respect can be placed on a case reported as 2006 PTD ('['rib.) 1768. As the order in this case for all the three years has been passed by the Taxation Officer under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on 3-6-2003, which has rightly been declared as illegal, null and void and has been cancelled, no interference in this respect is, therefore, required. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and all the three appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
C.M.A./144/Tax (Trib.)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.