2010 PTD 2146

Versus Manzoor Hussain Shad , Shoaib Ahmed

Citation2010 PTD 2146

CourtINLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

Titled appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue calling in question the impugned order dated 8-11-2002, passed by the learned CIT(A) Zone-1, Lahore. The sole contention of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified to cancel the order passed under section 62/132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 of 2001.

2. Facts in brief are that original assessment in this case was finalized at net income of Rs.43,90,000. On appeal the learned CIT(A) set aside the case for de novo consideration. Re-assessment was finalized at net income of Rs.28,78,000. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT who set aside the addition made under section 13(1)(aa) vide order dated 31-3-2003. In the second round of litigation the department preferred appeal before the ITAT who vide an order dated 14-9-2005 again set aside the case on the issue of cost of construction. Re-assessment was finalized on 28-6-2007 at net income of Rs.28,78,000 by repeating the same calculations made in the second round of assessment also including additions under section 13(1)(aa) and 13(1)(d) at Rs.18,40,000 and 10,38,000 respectively. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who vide any order dated 8-11-2002 vacated/cancelled the assessment order, hence the instant appeal by the Revenue.

3. Both the parties have been heard and relevant orders perused. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned first appellate authority cancelled the assessment for the sole reason that the same was hit by limitation. It was argued by the learned A.R. that re-assessment should be finalized within one year from the end of financial year in which such order was received by the Taxation Officer. Admittedly, ITAT order was received on 13-5-2003 and according to which re-assessment proceedings should have been completed by 30-6-2004. The learned D.R. has failed to rebut the assertions made by the learned A.R.

4. After hearing both the parties we do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order which is hereby maintained. Appeal of the Revenue being without any force stands rejected.

C.M.A./122/Tax (Trib.) Appeal rejected.