I. T. A. NO.708 (IB) OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 1988. Versus I. T. A. NO.708 (IB) OF 1986-87, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 1988.
ORDER
This appeal on behalf of the assessee is directed against the impugned order of learned A.A.C. in consequence of which he confirmed assessment relating to the charge year, 1984-85.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in this case assessment was originally made on net income of Rs.24,200 under section 59(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), by virtue of the Income-tax Officer, Circle-24, Rawalpindi's order dated 20--12-1984. Subsequently, however the said assessment was re-opened on the basis of information received from the Income-tax Officer, Survey and Collation-III, Rawalpindi, intimating the Income-tax Officer, Circle-24, Rawalpindi, that the assessee had purchased property worth Rs.60,000 on 13-.11-1985, necessitating investigation by the latter. In consequence thereof, assessment was re-opened with the prior approval of IAC, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, conveyed to the Income-tax Officer, Circle-24, Rawalpindi, vide letter No. F.12/24/RP/1658, dated 18-12-1985. Based on re-assessment proceedings, income of the assessee was determined at Rs.89,663 under section 62 read with section 65 of the Ordinance. Income as assessed heretobefore was contested in appeal before learned A.A.C., who by virtue of Appeal No.289, dated 5-1-1987, confirmed assessment relating .to the charge year 1984-85, thereby resulting in the filing of second appeal before the Tribunal. This appeal after hearing has been disposed of today and a finding on it follows in the paras hereafter.
3. On the basis of evidence available on record I have noted that assessment relating to the charge year 1984-85, was re-opened on the sole ground that whereas according to the assessee purchase price of house No.84-E.S/Town, Rawalpindi was Rs.60.000 its value for the purpose of Capital Gains Tax was assessed at Rs.2,60,000 by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi. Based on this information, inquiry of the I.T.O. should have been confined to seeking explanation in regard to the difference between the disclosed price and that assessed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi. On account of this reason there was no justification with the I. T .O. to have proposed a separate addition under section 13(1)(aa) of the Ordinance to the extent of Rs.65,463. This thing apart since no evidence was put on record to displace purchase price of House No.84-E,S/Town, Rawalpindi the I.T.O. fell into an error in accepting assessed price of the house by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi. In reaching this conclusion I have been fortified by 2 cases disposed of vide ITA No.185/IB/1985-86 dated 11-5-1986 and ITA No.110/IB/1985-86 dated 30-4-1986. Therefore, on this score also disclosed purchase price could not be questioned by the I.T.O. unless definite proof/evidence was put on record to make a deviation from it. Apart from what has been stated heretobefore, it is necessary to put on record that, the assessee purchased S.N.F. Bonds to the extent of Rs.4,00,000 on 31-8-1985 vide certificate No.ADV/SNFB-98/1986 issued in his favour by the United Bank Ltd. Rawalpindi City. Therefore, the assessee had with him a sum of Rs.4,00,000 for adjustment against additions made under section 13(1)(aa) and (d) of the Ordinance amounting in all to Rs.2,65,463 in respect of which at any rate there was no evidence on record. Since this piece of evidence was not rightly appreciated nor the authorities below carefully read assessee's explanation dated 11-6-1986, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that addition if at all called for under section 13(1)(aa) and (d) of the Ordinance stood covered by the purchase of SNF Bonds to the extent of Rs.4,00,000.
4. Even on a legal premise, it is not possible for me to sustain the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.65,463 as double approval was not obtained before adding it to the income already assessed as contemplated by section 13(1) and (2) of the Ordinance. In saying so, I have relied on a case reported as ,(1987) P T D 300 (Tribunal). Therefore, based on facts and law, there was no justification with learned A.A.C. to have confirmed addition to the extent of Rs .65, 463 , which is hereby deleted. The Income-tax Officer is directed to give effect to this order.
M.B.A./ 540 / T Appeal accepted .