2002 PLP 439 (PTD)

"(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. justified in cancelling the addition when the assessee was confronted with value of Rs.27,50,000. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, has the I.T.A.T. not erred in not fixing the value of Rs.27,50,000. (3) Was the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. justified in holding that the approval under section 13 was not obtained when the complete assessment was passed with the approval of the I.A.C.? (4) Has the learned I.T.A.T. erred in holding that the I.T.O. had no definite information about rates of land when the I.T.O. relied on auction rates after giving due weightage for time factor and other factors?

2. According to the statement .of the State, the assessee is an individual who returned income from property and salary for the assessment year 1986-87 at Rs.74,

478. On selection of his case for total audit the Assessing Officer by way of the order, dated 28-6-1987 proceeded to make an addition of Rs.6,75,000 under section 13(1)(d) of the Ordinance, 1979. Earlier it was found that the assessee had understated his 1/4th share in a commercial property whose value was adopted by the Assessing Officer at Rs.35,00,

000. The, difference between the declared and adopted value, as said above, was added towards the income which was computed at Rs.7,49,

471. The remand order passed by the First Appellate Authority on 18-8-1987 was successfully challenged before the Tribunal. The learned 'Division Bench by way of the impugned order decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue mainly on two points. Firstly that the procedure of obtaining two consecutive approvals before making an addition under section 13(1)(d) was not observed. Secondly even on merits the Assessing Officer had not supported his valuation of the property by bringing sufficient material on record.

3. Thereafter the request of the Revenue for reference of a question of law under section 136(1) was rejected on 28-2-1991.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the view that legal proposition proposed as Question No.3 having already been decided against the Revenue in a number of cases no detailed discussion in this regard is required to be taken. The issue if the approval of draft assessment order by the I.A.C. sufficiently answered the requirements of two consecutive approvals as provided for under section 13 has time and again been mooted and decided by this Court. In re: C.I.T. v. Dr. Mrs: S.P. Niazi, Professor Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore (C.T.R. No.324 of 1991) we agreed with the view earlier expressed by a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Kasim 2000 PTD

280. In that case it was observed that parallel provisions of section 4(2D) of the late Act postulated two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. for making additions to the declared income while making resort to the provisions of section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

5. That being so our answer to Question No.3 is in the affirmative.

6. Rest of the three Questions Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the circumstances are not needed to be answered.

7. Reference disposed of.

8. This order will also dispose of P.T.R. No. 11 of 1991. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-126/L Reference answered.