2010 PLP (Trib (PTD)

The instant Miscellaneous Applications have been filed to seek rectification in the order of this Tribunal passed vide W.T.As. Nos.5 to 12/KB/2007 dated 29-2-2008. The primary reason for filing these applications are that the additional tax charged for the period from the due date till the framing of order is incorrect and illegal in the eyes of the law as the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) are very clear that the additional tax is chargeable only for the period from due date till the end of the relevant assessment year. Reliance is placed on the case law reported as 2002 PTD Tribunal 221.

2. The Miscellaneous Applications also after certain procedural lapses on account of service of notice and non-granting of proper opportunity which according to the learned AR can be construed as mistake apparent from record.

3. Mr. Abdul Tahir ITP appeared on behalf of the applicant assessee and argued with vehemence on the grounds set forth in the miscellaneous applications while none attended from the side of the department.

4. After considering the arguments of learned AR and perusing the relevant record we have found that the applications have been moved merely on the ground that this Tribunal erred in restoring the additional tax charged for the period from the date till the framing of assessments whereas under the provisions of section 31B(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act it was chargeable only for the period till the end of the relevant assessment year.

5. On going through the record we have found that the applicant had also moved miscellaneous applications for stay of demand against the order of Tribunal under review, and while deciding the stay applications the learned Tribunal vide MAs (Stay) Nos. 24 to 30/KB/2009 observed as under:- "However there is substance in the arguments of learned AR that additional tax should have been charged in the light of the proviso to section 31B(1)(b) of Repealed Act. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that prima facie the calculation of additional tax does not appear to be correct. Final position of this matter will be determined at the time of hearing of assessee's application for rectification. However the request of the assessee for the grant of stay in respect of the excess amount of additional tax having been charged not in accordance with the provisions of section 31B(l)(b) is hereby accepted. It is therefore, directed that calculation of additional tax should be made keeping in view the provisions of section 31B(1)(B) as well as the case of reported as 2002 PTD (Trib.) 221 and the balance demand of additional tax is hereby stayed for a period of two months or decisions of miscellaneous application for rectification whichever is earlier."

6. It is abundantly clear from the above observation that a `direction' has already been given by the learned Bench to calculate additional tax keeping in view the provisions of section 31B(1)(b) as well as the case law reported as 2002 PTD (Trib.) 221.

7. In the wake of aforementioned facts we do not see any reason to make any further finding on the subject. The direction already give, in our opinion stands good as far as the instant miscellaneous applications are concerned. C. M.A./112/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.