M.A. (AG) No.562/LB of 2006 and I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005, decided on 26th June, 2006. VS M.A. (AG) No.562/LB of 2006 and I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005, decided on 26th June, 2006., 2007 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 379 (2006)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 24(c) & 134---Addition---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---All necessary details were provided which were acknowledged by Assessing Officer---Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax who was author of impugned order, without confronting a single instance of inadmissibility disallowed certain amounts in a very bald mam1er---No justification was left with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to make additions.

2005 PTD 1157 rel.

Sirajuddin Khalid for Appellant.

S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali for Respondent.

ORDER

Before taking up the main appeal the learned AR for the assessce argued on the admissibility of following additional ground because this go to the root of the cases:

"That the learned CIT(A) was not justified to set aside the case for the de novo deliberation proceeding on estimate of receipts for commission and other income instead of deletion of addition made, as notice under proviso to section 62(1) was not issued giving his mind to reject and estimate the receipts."

2. We have perused the impugned assessment order and we have observed that books of account were not produced by the assesses, hence they were not examined, therefore, when there were no books of account available before the Assessing Officer, this grievance of the assessee appellant does not arise from the assessment order, hence were declined to entertain the additional ground.

3. With regard to he original ground of appeal the learned AR for the assessee-appellant stated that in a reported case cited as 2005 PTD 1157 a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in an identical ease allowed the relief to Messrs Royal Travel Service (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad. On the other hand, the DR on behalf of the Revenue defended the order of the learned first appellate authority.

4. We have perused the available records and heard both the parties. We find force in the arguments of the learned AR for the appellant and we have further observed that the case cited by the learned AR is on all fours with that of the assessee before us. In view of this situation, we therefore, are of the considered opinion that the addition under section 24(c) is illegal and, therefore, we order the same to be deleted.

5. With regard to the addition from the P&L account claims the learned AR stated that all the necessary details were provided and the Assessing Officer has acknowledged the same on page 3 of the impugned assessment order. The learned AR, however, pointed out that DCIT Circle-34 Multan, the author of this order, without confronting a single instance of inadmissibility disallowed certain amounts in a very bald manner. We find force in the arguments of the learned AR on this account. Therefore, we do not think that in the given circumstances there was any justification left with the DCIT to make such additions which are, therefore, ordered to he deleted.

6. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above whereas the miscellaneous application is dismissed being without any merit.

H.B.T./204/Tax (Trib.)Appeal allowed.