2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)

These titled appeals are filed by the Revenue to impugn orders all dated 26-6-2011 in Appeals Nos.319, 320, 321 and 318 passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Multan. Facts in brief are that Messrs Chicago Metal (AOP), Multan derives income from manufacturing of engine parts and supply to Millat Tractors and Al-Ghazi Tractors. Return for the tax years under consideration was filed claiming refund. The ACIR issued refund after deducting WWF amounting to Rs.49,913, Rs.46,937, Rs.41,240 and Rs.13,565 respectively without passing formal written order and balance refund was issued. Feeling aggrieved the taxpayers challenged this order before the learned CIR(A) who set aside the order of the Taxation Officer passed under section 170 of the Ordinance about adjusting WWF without passing the order in writing and remanded the case with the directions to pass a speaking order in writing. Feeling dissatisfied the Revenue has challenged this order on the following grounds: (i) That the order of the learned CIR(A) is bad in law and facts. (ii) That the learned CIR(A) was not justified to set aside the order under section 170 of the income Tax Ordinance, 2001 without any cogent reason as refund due was issued as per law. The learned Income Tax Practitioner appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order.

2. We have heard the rival arguments and find that the adjustment of WWF from refund claim has been made without passing the order of WWF in writing as per requirements of section (4) of the WWF Ordinance which is reproduced as under for facility:--' "(4) At the time of making an assessment under (the Ordinance), or as soon thereafter as may be, the (Taxation Officer) shall, by order in writing, determine the amount due from industrial establishment under subsection (1), if any, on the basis of the income so assessed after taking into account the amount paid by the industrial establishment under subsection (3) in respect of the year and the industrial establishment shall pay the amount so determined on or before the date specified in the order." It has been correctly held by the learned CIR(A) that the Taxation Officer has violated the mandatory procedure which renders his action void. As regards the arguments of the Revenue that the learned CIR(A) is not competent to set aside the order of the Taxation Officer, we find that under Clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to make such order as he thinks fit. Further the officer who is empowered to hear and decide the appeals against any order has an inherent power of setting aside the appeals if he deems appropriate. We, therefore, find no reason to disturb the impugned orders and the same are upheld. The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits.

3. Order accordingly. C.M.A./77/Tax(Trib.)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.