W.T.A. No. 582/LB of 1996, decided on 11th March, 2002. Versus W.T.A. No. 582/LB of 1996, decided on 11th March, 2002.

ORDER

1. JAVED TAHIR BUTT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).‑‑‑ This appeal has been filed by the assessee for .the assessment year 1985‑86, against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) on the following grounds:‑‑‑

(i) The assessment order was prepared by the Assessing Officer with the help of and under precise directions (in writing) of tire Commissioner of Wealth Tax. This order according to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court was invalid and non‑existent in law. Such an order in appeal could not be treated except by striking it down.

(ii) This objection was taken with permission before the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) verbally but the appellant had at the time no documentary evidence, it has collected it very recently.

(iii) The question involved is a pure question of law.

(iv) The order of Commissioner of Appeals based on an order which was nullity, it is also a nullity.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was framed under section 16(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that its activities were charitable in nature and fell within the ambit of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, as a consequence of which its wealth was not liable to tax. The Assessing Officer did not accept this contention and proceeded to frame assessments for charge years 1985‑86 to 1993‑94. In appeal, the CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessment, has not been properly framed and set aside the assessment order.

3. We have heard both sides and also perused the relevant record available on file. It was informed that the assessment order in consequence of the appeal order was passed which was also under appeal and even appeal order was passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the year under appeal on 29‑6‑2000. As such the appeal has become infructuous and is dismissed.

2. . (Sd.)

3. (Javed Tahir Butt),

4. Accountant Member.

5. MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑ ‑I have gone through the judgment of my learned brother in Messrs Pakistan Engineering Congress, Lahore. While agreeing with him on the fate of the appeal, I will like to add the following:‑‑‑

6. This appeal was filed against the order of C.W.T.(A) against the set aside order on 23‑5‑1996. Subsequently, the department moved an application for early hearing of the appeal which was allowed and on that date the case was adjourned as D.B,‑I was not working, Subsequently, the appeal was fixed for 14‑6‑2001, 8‑9‑2001, 17‑10‑2001, 3‑11‑2001, 17‑11‑2001, 24‑11‑2001, 17‑1‑2002, 26‑2‑2002 and 9‑3‑2002. The appeal was adjourned on the request of the A.R. of the assessee on one pretext or the other sometimes by change of the counsel and sometimes by due to the illness of the counsel or his engagements before the High Court and the Apex Court etc.

7. As usual, there was no assistance from the department and the reassessment was made under sections 16(3)/23 on 27‑3‑1998 against which the appeal filed by the assessee was decided by C.W.T.(A) on 29‑6‑2000 which has come to light from the photostat copy of the order given by the A.R. of the assessee on 9‑3‑2002 which has been placed on file. Due to the utter negligence of the Revenue having been without record and not given proper assistance to the Court as the matter stood already decided before the regular hearing started at this forum from 14‑6‑2001 and onwards detail of which has been given above. A lot of this Tribunal's time got wasted.

8. This is a very serious matter which should be brought to the notice of the R.C.I.T. in order to save the precious time of this Tribunal and also necessary delay in deciding the appeal and also in the interest of the Revenue for the recovery of the demand, if arising out of the impugned order.

9. C.M.A./M.A.K./266/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.