VS, 2010 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 1196 (2010)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----Ss.111(1)(b) & 184---Unexplained income or assets---Addition---First Appellate Authority deleted the additions made by the Taxation Officer under S.111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as documentary evidence was furnished showing that the taxpayer had the source of investment---Penalty made under S.184 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 being consequential to such addition had also been annulled---Iqrar nama deed of agreement and other documents had been furnished---Appellate Tribunal held that First Appellate Authority had rightly deleted the addition and annulled the consequent penalty mad by the Taxation Officer---No interference was warranted in the order of First Appellate Authority and appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.

Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for the Appellant.

Shoaib A. Sh. for Respondent.

ORDER

JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.---The appellant through these two appeals has objected to the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A) dated 25-3-2009 for the tax year 2007 while passing two separate orders regarding the orders passed by the Taxation Officer under section 121(1)((d) and orders under section 184 of the Ordinance, 2001.

I have heard the learned representatives from both the sides and have also perused the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A), the assessment orders, and other relevant record of the case.

I have found that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the Taxation Officer under section 111(1)(b), as on behalf of the assessee documentary evidence was furnished showing that the taxpayer has source of investment to the tune of Rs.25,00,480. Likewise, the penalty made under section 184 being the consequential to the above addition has also been annulled. On behalf of appellant, the Iqrar Nama, Sale of Agreement and other documents have been furnished. After considering these documents I am of the view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and has annulled the consequent penalty made by the Taxation Officer. I therefore find no warrant for interference in the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A) which is upheld and both the appeals filed by the appellant-department are dismissed.

C.M.A./48/Tax(Trib.)Appeals dismissed.