W.T.A. NO.372/KB O:' 1999-2000 Versus W.T.A. NO.372/KB O:' 1999-2000
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, (CHAIRMAN). - --in this appeal at the instance of assessee following objection has been raised:---
"It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not deleting, as was prayed for in appeal by the appellant, the charge of additional tax of Rs.2,102 levied by the learned Assessing Officer under section 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which is illegal."
2. Heard Mr. S. Rehan Hassan Jafri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Khalid Siddiqui, learned representative for the department.
3. Mr. Rehan Jafri has submitted that the Assessing Officer charged additional tax under section 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which was not sustainable in fact and law. He has submitted :that it is admitted position that there was no default in payment of tax under section 14-A, of the Wealth Tax Act, and therefore, the additional tax under section 31-B was liable to be cancelled. The learned CIT(A) accepted the above contention but instead of cancelling/deleting the charge of additional tax set aside the finding with the observation that the additional tax was leviable under section 31-BBB and with the direction for fresh decision in accordance with the law. Mr. Jafri I has vehemently argued that the learned CIT(A) has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in him and thus has fallen in error. Mr. Jafri has contended that the sole issue before the learned CIT(A) was if the additional tax charged under section 31-B was sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Once he came to the conclusion that the additional tax which formed subject-matter of appeal was trot sustainable, he ought to have cancelled/deleted the, same. The learned CIT(A) instead of acting within the four corners of law, assumed the jurisdiction for giving direction to charge an entirely different additional tax which was not the subject-matter of appeal. .
4. The learned D.R. is not to rebut the above contentions.
5. We are persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Jafri. the setting aside of the issue pertaining to the charging of additional tax and consequential direction given by the learned CIT(A) are manifestly beyond the jurisdiction vested in learned CIT(A). The impugned finding of learned CIT(A) is, therefore, hereby modified. The finding setting aside the issue relating to charge of additional tax and consequential directions are hereby vacated. The additional tax charged under section. 31-B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is hereby cancelled/deleted. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
M.B.A./79/Tax(Trib.) Appeal allowed.