M. A. (Rect.) No. 431/KB of 2003 in I.T.A. No. 1350/KB/SB of 1996-97, M. A. (Rect.) Versus M. A. (Rect.) No. 431/KB of 2003 in I.T.A. No. 1350/KB/SB of 1996-97, M. A. (Rect.)

ORDER

S. HASAN IMAM (JUDICIAL MEMBER).----‑‑ ‑These three Miscellaneous Applications have been moved by the assessee Applicant.

Heard the learned representatives of the two parties. In applications for rectification of mistake moved under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 read with section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Facts reveal that the assessee raised various ground in all the three appeals bearing I.T.As. Nos. 1350, 1351 and 1352/KB/SB of 1996‑97 pertaining to assessment years 1996‑97 to 1998‑99. The learned Judicial Member sitting singly through a consolidated order, dated 17‑7‑2003 after hearing the assessee rejected the appeals whereby upheld the combined order of the learned CIT(A) under section 156 read with section 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The learned Judicial Member dismissed the appeals existing from the Rectification Application observing that the grounds taken in the Rectification Application moved before the CIT(A) are different from the grounds taken in main appeal thus the ground not agitated before the learned CIT(A) cannot be rectified. Assessee being aggrieved from the impugned order moved present applications for the reason that ground No.8 raised before the Tribunal is not taken into consideration for the purpose of further discussion the ground No.8 is reproduced hereunder':

"That the appeal was to be allowed partly in view of the observation made in the order (the same order bas been reproduced in the rectification application) but due to inadvertence mistake the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Additional Commissioner of Income tax."

3. In fact this is not a specific ground requiring independent decision by the Tribunal. Even in case the appeal is partly allowed by the CIT(A) but in the last line it is dismissed, even then the Assessing Officer is legally bound to implement the order in its real spirit and to follow the specific finding each issue. Although no reason appears to rectify the order, dated 17‑7‑2002 which is not only well discussed but also contains all the relevant facts even then in the interest of justice we find reasons to direct the Assessing Officer to implement the order of the learned CIT(A) taken into consideration his findings in each and every issue.

4. The rectification applications in the circumstances stand dismissed.

C.M.A./91/Tax (Trib.) Application dismissed.