2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)

CH. MUNIR SADIQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).

This order shall dispose of the titled appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25-10-2010 passed by CIR (Appeals), Gujranwala.

2. None is present on behalf of the Revenue nor any application for adjournment has been received. Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Sh., Advocate is present on behalf of the respondent. I deem it fit to proceed ex parte and decide the case on merits.

3. Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:-- (a) That the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) Gujranwala is not justified in cancelling the assessment made under section 122(1) that was framed after duly considering the reply of the taxpayer, without any cogent reason. (b) That the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) Gujranwala is not justified in cancelling the assessment under section 122 on the ground that the taxpayer neither purchased the motor vehicle nor made any investment thereon. The said motor vehicle was purchased/booked in the name of taxpayer, establishing that the investment was duly made by the taxpayer himself. (c) That the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Gujranwala is not justified in treating another person, namely Ch. Muhammad Ashraf as the actual purchaser of the motor vehicle. The motor vehicle, in fact, was purchased/booked in the taxpayer's name on provision of his personal NTN. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/taxpayer has supported the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein and has also submitted copy of payment receipt showing that the motor vehicle LEV-08 4644 was registered in the name of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf. He also submitted copy of delivery letter showing that the delivery of said car was made to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf. He has also submitted a copy of affidavit sworn by said Ch. Muhammad Ashraf wherein he has mentioned that as he did not have NTN, therefore, he used NTN of Mr. Ibrar Ahmad/present respondent. He further submitted that these documents were produced before the Taxation Officer but he rejected them simply describing them as an afterthought. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned CIR (Appeals) has observed that the Assessing Officer should have considered the affidavit given by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and should have conducted proper inquiry in case the Assessing Officer did not consider the contents of the affidavit to be true. He further observed that no inquiry whatsoever was conducted by the Assessing Officer and contention of the appellant was rejected arbitrarily and therefore, cancelled the impugned assessment order. I am of the view that the observations made by learned CIR (Appeals) are justified and he has rightly cancelled the impugned assessment order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order to warrant any interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merits. C.M.A./17/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.