1988 PLP (Trib (PTD)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).-- These 11 appeals relate to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84 and have been filed by M/s. Lahore Cantonment Cooprative Housing Society Limited, Lahore. The first 8 appeals are in respect of the assessment proper and relate to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84, and the remaining three in respect of penalties relate to the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 levied under section 87 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. These appeals take objection to the decision of the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the I.T.O. in so far as he charged to tax the interest income of the society earned from dealings with non-members, but unlike the ITO, allowed certain expenses against the interest income of the society. In regard to non-payment of advance tax he confirmed the orders of, the ITO. The learned counsel for the assessee and the learned legal adviser of the Department have been heard and all the appeals are decided by this combined order.

2. In regard to interest income of the cooperative society from its dealings with non-members it may be stated that the society got registered under the Cooperative Societies Act with the object to promote economic and social interests of its members and in particular to lay out, establish and maintain a housing scheme known as Defence Society, Lahore Cantonment. For achieving these objects the society purchased from time to time tracks of land, developed into residential plots and sold them to its members. The ITO also learnt through enquiries that the society had received interest income for all these 8 years through the deposits made in the scheduled banks, viz. in the United Bank Ltd., Habib Bank Ltd., National Bank Ltd. and Allied Bank Ltd. The ITO considered that the first type of income earned through dealings with the members was exempt under clause 103(a), as amended, of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. But in respect of the second category of income viz. interest from banks he considered it as liable to tax and accordingly initiated steps to tax the same.

3. The I.T.O. accordingly issued notices under section 56 on 18-2-1984 which were served on 20-2-1984 but returns were filed only on 16-4-1984. During this time and prior to the filing of returns the I.T.O. issued notices under section 61 for 1976-77 to 1983-84, first time on 18-2-1984 for compliance on 28-2-1984. These were not complied with. The notices under section 61 were issued again on 28-2-1984 for compliance on 4-3-1984. These were also not complied with and the returns were not filed till then. The ITO then issued notices under section 65 for the year 1976-77 to 1978-79 on 15-3-1984 which were served on 18-3-1984 for compliance on 4-4-1984. For the remaining years from 1979-80 to 1983-84 notices under section 56 issued earlier remained in force. As stated above these notices were not complied with but the assessee appeared on 4-4-1984. As the assessee was not complying with the notices for filing the returns the I.A.C. wrote a letter, dated 3-4-1984 which was served on the assessee on 6-4-1984 requiring the Cooperative Society to file the returns. In his letter he had also referred to the meeting with the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the meantime the I.T.O. made another attempt to require the assessee to attend his office for which he issued notices under section 61 on 3-4-1984 (which were served on. E-4--1984) for compliance on 10-4-1984 in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84. The returns were filed ultimately or. "1 16-4-1984. In respect of the assessment year 1983-84 the incomes returned was Rs.77.023 and the words "Under Protest" were inscribed, on the returns. The returns were filed under protest on the plea? that the Society was exempt from Income Tax. Finally he issued notices under sections 61 and 62 for the years 1976-77 to 1983-84 on 17-4-1984 (which were served on 18-4-1984) for compliance on 23-4-1984. In the letter accompanying these notices the I.T.O. required the assessee to furnish yearwise details of interest income earned through dealings with non-members. The assessee attended the office on 23-4-1984, furnished all the statements and other information, which was asked from him. The I.T.O. finally completed the assessments on 30-4-1984.

4. From the statements filed by the Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society the I.T.O. noted in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 the following figures and regarding interest income and 9 other sources as under: (i)? Interest received on deposits with banks. Rs.14,35,263 (ii) Income from other 9 sources. Rs.21,22,056 Rs.35,57,319 In respect of the interest income on amounts deposited in the Banks the I.T.O. issued specific notices vide his No. 1677172, dated 1.7-4-1984. which required the assessee to give reasons and show cause as to why the income from non-members in the form of interest on deposits should not be charged to tax. The assessee did not furnish any reply to these notices. In order to bring the interest income to charge the I.T.O. referred to Item No. (103) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, relevant extracts of which are as follows: ?????? "Incomes, or classes of income; or persons or classes of persons? enumerated below, shall be exempt from tax, subject to the conditions and to the extent specified hereunder:- "(103) In the case of a cooperative society (including a co?operative society carrying on the business of banking),-- (a)??????? so much of its income, profits and gains as is derived by it as a result of its dealings with its members. ??????????? Explanation: In this clause, dealings with a member means any dealing? involving sale of goods, the lending of money or the lease of buildings or land which is for the-personal use of such member: (b)??????? ............ (c)??????? interest and dividends derived from its investments with any other cooperative society;" In view of the above provision the I.T.O. arrived at the conclusion that the interest income received on deposits in the banks was liable to tax as it was through dealings with non-members. As to the claim of expenses against the same, he did not allow any amount on the plea that the income is only in the form of interest from non-member banks for which no effort was made on the part of the society or any expenses incurred. He had thus not allowed any expense against the interest income, which he assessed as follows: 1976-77 Rs. 5,03,055 1977-78 Rs. 1,82,308 1978-79 Rs. 4,95,715 1979-80 Rs.20,76,612 1980-81 Rs.42,15,091 1981-82 Rs.62,87,257 1982-83 Rs.30,69,620 1983-84 Rs.14,35,265 ???????????????????????

5. He further supported his decision by citing the case reported as (1960) 2 Tax V 47 in which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had held that profit arising from dealings with outsiders could not be considered as covered by the doctrine of mutuality and was liable to tax. The second case relied upon by him was that reported as (1978) 38-Tax 13 under which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that profit derived by cooperative societies from dealings with non-members was not exempt from tax,

6. As regards the non-payment of advance tax, which an assessee is required to deposit under section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, he imposed additional tax by way of penalty a/s 87 of the Income Tax Ordinance.

7. Taking objection to the decision of the' I. T .O. the assessee? society filed appeals with the C.I.T. (Appeals) who according to the I.T.O. gave a finding that the interest income which has been derived from dealings with other than members was liable to tax, particularly under sub-clause (c) of item (103) of the Second Schedule to the income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which only exempts interests and dividends of a cooperative society derived from its investments Witt any other cooperative society. Since the society had not deposited its surplus funds with .the cooperative banks, but instead had deposited these funds in the scheduled banks referred to above, these were liable to tax. In regard to expenses the learned C.I.T (A), however, disagreeing with the I.T.O. and agreeing with the assessee's plea that unless funds were mobilised after meeting certain overhead expenses no surplus funds could be available and interest income could be earned. He accordingly allowed 10% of the expenses as admissible expense against the interest income. In regard to penalty orders, whereas he vacated the orders of the I.T.0 for non-payment of tax alongwith the return and for levying penalty for non-payment of tax, but he upheld the I.T.O's order for non-payment of advance tax in respect of which he directed that consequential effect be given and the additional tax re-computed.

8. The Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. not being satisfied with the order of the learned C.I.T. (A) has come up before us taking various grounds in the memos of appeal. In addition to other grounds two fresh points have been raised which were not agitated before the C.I.T. (A) viz. (i) that the notices under section 56/65 were barred by time for the first three years, and (ii) that the income earned by the assessee was not the income of the Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Society, but belongs to the members as it was returnable to them. The other grounds taken are that: the order of the I.T.O. is illegal the notices issued under section 56 are illegal which violate the provisions of section 166 (2) (c)(ii); the Department has completed the assessments in haste without giving proper opportunity to-the assessee though no income was returned by the assessee. The further grounds are that assessee had filed statements of trading account, profit and loss account and balance-sheet and had produced books, but the I.T.0 has not raised any query in regard to the statements and the information supplied, that the decision of the learned C.I.T (A) is illegal and uncalled for, the expenses allowed at 10% of the overall expenses are inadequate and total expenses should have been allowed, and that penalties imposed for non-payment of advance tax, for not depositing the tax alongwith the returns and the levy of penalty for non-payment of tax are illegal. Finally the proceedings started under sections 108 and 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are uncalled for and the claim for exemption of the income under clause (103) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had wrongly been rejected. All these issues are dealt with as under:

9. Taking up the two new points the position in regard to the first question on issue of notices under section 56 being barred by time for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the factual position is that these were issued on 18-2-1984 and were received by the assessee on 22-2-1984. The learned counsel for the assessee pleaded that notices under the provisions of section 22(2)/34 of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922 could be issued within two years of the year in which these three assessments were to be framed i.e. these could 5e issued latest by 30-6-1979, 30-6-1980 and 30-6-1981. But since these were issued on 18-2-1984 these were barred by time. The provisions of section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance cannot be invoked for these three years as these proceedings became past and closed transactions and were not saved under section 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The next fresh ground takes the plea that the interest income charged to tax by the I.T.O. was not the income of the assessee-society but was returnable to the members of the society. Before we deal with these issues, we would like to mention that these two points were taken neither before the I. T .O. nor before the learned C.I.T. (A) and these issues have not been discussed in their orders. These two grounds could as well be disallowed by the Income Tax appellate Tribunal but admitting the same we proceed to examine them.

10. The learned Legal Adviser of the Department drew our attention to the provision of section 34 (1-A) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which provides that notices under section 34 read with section 22 (2) could be issued at any time in cases where returns under section 22 (1) or 22 (2) of the Act had not been filed. In this case admittedly no returns had been filed by the society till 15-4-1984 and that the returns for all the years from 1976-77 to 1983-84 were filed on 16-4-1984. Therefore, notices issued under section 56/65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on 18-2-1984 were not barred by time and were valid notice. Likewise his view was that under clause (b) of subsection (1-A) of section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 these notices could be issued within six years from tire end of the year in which the assessment cold first be made where the assessee has concealed the particular of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof or omitted or failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessments. Without going to the second clause (b) we would hold that since returns were not filed in this case under section 22 (1) or 22 (2) the notices for the years 1976-77 to 1978-79 could be issued at any time even after 1-7-1979 and these were not barred by time. These were accordingly valid notices and we agree with the plea advanced by the learned legal adviser. There is, however, no dispute with regard to the notices issued under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance for the remaining assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. We are also of the view that these cases were saved under the provisions of section 166(2)(c)(ii) and section 166,(2) (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Legal Adviser's view was that the ratio E of the case cited by the learned A.R. of the assessee and reported in 1984 P T D (Trib.) 147 is not applicable being not relevant to this case. We agree.

11. In regard to the second issue the learned A.R. for the assessee has argued that the I.T.O. has not given any notice indicating that he was proposing to tax the amount of income received on bank deposits made in the scheduled banks like U.B.L., H. B. L. and Allied Bank. If he had done so the assessee could have explained that the interest does not belong to the society and that it was in fact returnable to the members. A plea was taken that under the bye-laws only application form fee was not returnable to the members of the society but every other income was refundable to the members. We wanted to know if there was any bye-law of the society, which could be quoted in support of this plea. The learned A.R., however, could not draw our attention under which interest income could be treated as not the income of the society but as income refundable to the members. The factual position is also against the plea advanced by the learned A.R. On verification and examination of the balance-sheet we found for the year ending 30-6-1983 that it was not only the members' admission fee, which was not refundable, but income from corner plots receipts, from Sub-Division Fee, Transfer Fee, as indicated in the balance sheet, were also not refundable. The same holds good in respect of the interest income earned by the society on its deposit in the scheduled banks referred to above. There was no provision under the bye-laws that interest income was returnable to the members, nor was there any compulsion to do so.

12. In this connection another plea taken was that there were certain hurdles faced by the society in the way of acquisition of land. In fact some litigation had also taken place and the Society had to purchase undeveloped land at Rs.22,000 per 'kanal' and the interest income and other income earned by the assessee was spent on developing the same and its conversion into plots for allotment to the members at usual nominal rates. Apart from the fact that this position did not obtain in respect of the land acquired by the assessee in Phase I and the members received it at different rates, those members, who received the land at a nominal rate of Rs.6,500 per kanal, which was the deposit money asked for by the society, did not receive any money from the society by way of compensation. After meeting the additional cost of the plots, the surplus money was deposited in the bank. The fact remains that the amount was not refunded to the members by way of interest income earned. Taking all facts into consideration we are of the view that neither was there any bye-law under which interest income was returnable to the members, nor it was in fact returned.

13. The next plea of the learned A.R. was that there was no intention to earn income from interest. Certain cases were cited in support of this plea which are dealt with as under: (1) The first case was of Meerut Housing Cooperative Society, Meerut v. I.T.O. Meerut of Indian Income Tax Tribunal and reported, in the Miscellaneous Tribunal judgments, as I.T.A. No-207 (Del.)/1977-78 (.Assessment year 1974-75). In this case the Meerut Cooperative Housing Society with the approval of the Government sold certain land to meet some liability and earned income. The Department treating the land as stock-in?-trade of the society assessed the profit as business income which action was confirmed by the AAC in principle who allowed certain deductions. The Indian Tribunal, however, deleted the same, holding that the land was not stock-in-trade and that the AAC was wrong in holding that the society had earned profit from business or from an adventure in the nature of trade. Extracts from para 7 of the judgment may be reproduced: "We have carefully considered the rival submissions placed before us. We are of the view that the real issue in this case got lost in the complexities of the legal propositions contended before the lower authorities as also before us for quite some time. In our opinion, the issue is very simple. The issue is whether the land which was allotted by the assessee vide it: resolution dated 10-6-1973 was its stock-in-trade. In our opinion it was not so. For this purpose, we need not concern ourselves whether the assessee was carrying on the business of dealing in land either with its members or with any outsiders, if at all, in the past. The land in question had been set aside by the assessee for a public purpose, namely, for starting a school for the good of the members of the Society. That was done as per the plan sanctioned and approved by the' Government. It was, therefore, not authorised to sell that' land. The assessee had already sold the other land, which it was authorised to do, -to its members. Its cost had also been realised from the members and as per Clause 1 of the Permanent Free-hold Lease Deed, no further amount could be realized from the members. The Society, therefore, found itself in predicament when additional compensation amounting to Rs.4.30,952 became due to the owners of the land because of the decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered on 13-7-1966. Funds were required to meet this extra demand. As a result of the negotiations with the Government of II.P the latter permitted the Society to convert the school land into a residential area, cut it into 16 plots and sell 15 of them at Rs.60 per sq. yd. The letter dated 24-4-1972 to which a reference has already been made by us above states that the, Society in this way would be able to realise nearly Rs.5 lacs which would serve its purpose. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the permission by the Government was accorded to the Society to sell 15 plots only with a view to raise extra funds to pay off the excess compensation. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the Society was trading in the land in question." In the case before us there is no ground that it was not the Society's business income and that it was riot taxable. We would separately- deal with the issue of exemption of interest income under clause 103 (c) which refers to "interest and dividend derived from investment with any other cooperative society." The judgment of the Indian Tribunal in any case is distinguishable on the facts of the case and is not applicable to the matter before us. (11)????? The next case cited was that reported in P L D 1977 Lah. 184 relating to Colony Textile Mills where a transaction in respect of the machinery bought by the company was disposed of, as it was not required by it. The company had earned some profit in this transaction. It was decided in this case that it was not the business income. This case is obviously distinguishable from the one before us. (III) ???? In the third case cited, that of Hotel Metropole Limited vs. C.I.T. Karachi, the Sind High Court adjudicating the question as to whether the "service charges" realised by the Hotel to discourage the practice of "tipping" introduced by the Hotel were in fact, income of the company. It was held that receipts had no income making quality about it and was, therefore, not liable to Income Tax. To plead on the same analogy in the t case before us that the cooperative society's deposits in the bank and realisation of interest thereon had no income making quality, would be a far-fetched idea. 14 As to the assessee's plea that there was no intention to earn income from deposits as such, nor it was the assessee's business to I deposit money to earn income thereon, we enquired as to why the surplus funds were not deposited in the cooperative banks as this would have earned exemption for the society's interest income under clause 103 (c) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, we were told that the interest income earned from the scheduled banks was more than that from the cooperative banks and secondly the facility to withdraw money at a short notice from the Scheduled ',: Bank was not available with the cooperative banks. In this connection-' another plea advanced was that the I.T.O. though he issued notices under section 61, did not have any particular idea that it was taxable under clause (103) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax:. Ordinance, 1979 and that to bring the income to charge under Item (103) (c) he had issued no specific notices. The Society had shown income from various sources and that after submission of statements and other information on 23-4-1984 the I.T.O. passed an order on 30-4-1984 and that he has not applied his mind to the issue.

15. The learned Legal Adviser of the Department on the other hand stated that if the surplus funds had been deposited in any other cooperative bank interest income would have been exempt under Item (103) (c) of the Second Schedule. The fact that the money was deposited in the scheduled banks which yielded interest at higher rates than that available from the cooperative banks and the facility-, to withdraw money at a short notice indicated that the intention to earn money was there. The Society has not indicated that the interest money earned was to be distributed among the members under any bye-laws of the Society, or that it belongs to the members of the Society or that every member was entitled to the share of interest. No document of the Society shows how One interest in fact was divides: amongst the members What is more the interest income was not in fact refunded to the members. No plea was taken before the C.I.T. (A) that it was not the income of the Society. It is only an afterthought as the issue was not agitated before the I.T.O./C.I.T. (A), The grounds taken in the memo of appeal before the C.I.T. (A) did not include any such ground. The plea taken by the learned A.R. before the Tribunal that it was a legal issue, is also not tenable, since this is a question of fact and not law as to whether the income was refunded to the members of the Society or not. The Legal Adviser of the Department was further of the view that even if the interest income was to go back to the members of the Society even then it would be taxable ire the hands of the Society since it was not earned by the Society from its dealings with the non-members.

16. The learned A.R. of the Society also relied on the case reported as 1959 P T D (Trib.)

14. The facts briefly stated in that case are that a cooperative bank besides its banking business was carrying on business as a wholesale cloth dealer. The bank was purchasing cloth from importers under permits issued by the competent authority. There was control on prices of cloth and its distribution. The importers by mistake had overcharged the bank who in turn had sold the cloth to retailers on the basis of inflated prices. When the mistake was conducted the importers refunded the excess price to the bank. The bank in turn refunded to the retailers only a part of the amount, but a substantial amount viz. Rs.1,10,761 remained unrefunded and was ultimately passed on to a college under the instructions of the Registrar Cooperative Societies of the Provincial Government. The I.T.O. assessed this amount as profit in the hands of the bank calling it as only a disposal of its profits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that at no point of time the disputed amount became the assessee's income. Throughout it remained a liability, which the assessee-Bank had to discharge in one form or the other. The amount could not be treated as the income of the company when it was received, nor did it become its income on any later date and was, therefore, not liable to tax.

17. This case is clearly distinguishable from the one before us. In that case the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at any time was the amount to be refunded as it was not income of the company and that throughout it remained a liability which the assessee had to discharge in one form or the other. But in the case before us the interest income earned by Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society was never the liability of the Society and it was not to be discharged. The amount was not payable to the members under any bye-laws of the Society and in fact it was not paid back to them.

18. So far as the proceedings of the I.T.O. are concerned, he issued a notice under section 61 dated 17-4-1984 which finds a clear mention in his assessment order. The I.T.O. has stated in the order that: "A specific notice No.1677172 (NTN of the assessee) dated 17-4-1984 was also issued to the assessee specifically requiring him to give reasons and show cause as to why the income from non-member banks in the form of interest or deposits should not be charged to tax. Although this notice was properly served on the assessee on 18-4-1984 the assessee has not furnished any written reply." The plea that the figures were not indicated as to which amount from the income of the assessee the I.T.O. was going to assess the assessee, the Legal Adviser of the Department took the plea and stated that he would have prejudged the issue and, therefore, has not given these figures. We agree with the Legal Adviser that sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain its case. In this case notices under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance were issued on 6-3-1984, were received on 8-4-1984 and the returns were filed on 16-4-1984 and a plea was raised as to whether the notices could be issued prior to the filing of the returns. The view of the learned A.R. was that this could not be issued. The learned Legal Adviser referring to the provision of section 61 of the Ordinance, however, argued that the notices under section 61 could be issued both where returns had been filed by the assessee as well as upon whom a notice had been served to furnish such returns. As notices for filing the returns had already been issued in this case the I . T .O. could validly issue the notices under section

61. The contention that the returns filed were invalid would not stand in the way of issuing a notice under section

61. In any case the I.T.O. has not taken the stand in the assessment orders that the returns filed were invalid returns.

19. In regard to the assessee's contention that the interest earned from the banks was as a result of the dealings with the members, it may be stated, that it is a far-fetched idea. The interest income has C arisen out of the deposits made by the society in the banks and it has arisen as a result of dealings with the banks and not with the' members of the society. Part of the surplus funds was placed in the fixed deposit on long term deposits and part in short term deposits including 7 days term deposits. Intention to earn money was fiery much there. As regards the provision of Item (103)(c) of the Second schedule via. exemption allowed to "interest and dividends" derived from its investments with any other cooperative society is conditional on the fact that the interest must have been earned from it Investments/deposits made into a cooperative bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. Since this was not the position in this case the interest income was not exempt.

20. In regard to expenses against the interest income the C.I.T. (A) has stated that some expenditure has to be allowed out of the total overhead expenses incurred by the society as expenditure to earn the interest income from deposits in the banks. The assessee's plea that the deposits of money in the banks and getting interest thereon should not be treated as an isolated function was accepted by the C.I.T. (A) and he agreed that part of the overhead expenses were incurred by the society to earn interest income. Not agreeing with the I.T.O. he allowed 10% of the overhead expenses against the Interest income. For example, for the assessment year 1983-84 the I.T.O. had assessed the gross interest income of Rs.14,35,263 against which the C. I. T. (A) had allowed at 10% of overhead expenses of Rs.20,45,035 including depreciation of Rs.66,

855. The expenses allowed at 10%of the overhead expenses, in our view, are fair and the plea that at the expenses allowed are inadequate or illegal is devoid of any merit and is rejected.

21. The next set of grounds of appeal relates to the proceedings taken by the I. T.O., (i) for,, levying penalty and additional tax for not paying the advance tax under section 53 of the Income-tax Ordinance, (ii) for non-payment of tax alongwith the returns under section 54 and (iii) for not filing the returns of income under section

55. In regard to non-payment of advance tax the I.T.O. charged additional Income Tax under section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, a learned C.I.T. (A) has modified the orders directing that since the income determined has been modified consequential effect should given by the I.T.O. We are of the view that the decision taken by the learned C.I.T. (A) is fair and calls for no interference on this point. In regard to the additional tax levied under section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance for non-payment of tax alongwith the return, the assessee's plea is that since nil returns were filed no tax was payable alongwith the returns. The learned C.I.T. (A) has agreed with this finding but in spite of this he has set aside the orders of the ITO on this issue for all the years directing that a fresh order passed after taking into consideration the contention of the assessee. We are of the view that after giving a finding that admittedly 'nil' returns were filed, no penalty could be imposed u/s 88 of the Income-tax Ordinance since penalty can be imposed if tax is not paid on the basis of the return. Since no tax was payable on the basis of nil return, no penalty could be imposed. The orders imposing penalty are accordingly vacated. In respect of the order of the I.T.O. under section 89 for levy of additional tax for failure to pay the tax as determined by him, the C.I.T. (A) has cancelled the order and there could be no grouse against the same.

22. In respect of the proceedings initiated under section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, for failure to furnish the returns and section 116 of the Ordinance for show cause, the grounds are pre-mature as no order passed by the I.T.O. is before us at this relevant time nor the C.I.T. (A) has adjudicated upon the same. We do not consider it advisable to adjudicate upon this matter.

23. In the result all the appeals are decided as indicated above. M.B.A./520/T????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.