2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Subsidy 49,800,00 64,350,00 37,350 Accommodation Allowance 66,100,00 1,47,000,00 83,000 3,36,700,72 5,66,550,00 3,11,833 Except the salaries, rest of all the allowances are paid by the Government to the Member of Provincial Assembly to meet the expenses incurred; for working as public representative. Now all these-issues an again in the 2nd round of appeals. The summary of the assessment at the very first stage could be given as under:-- Asst. Year Gross Income Exemption claimed Net income declared Net income Assessed 1995-96 Rs:3;36,700 Rs.2,12,715 Rs.1,19,186 Rs.2,77,586 1996-97 Rs.5,66,550 Rs.4,31,950 Rs.1,34,600 Rs.4,86,950 1997-98 Rs.4,31,478 Rs.2,86,933 Rs.1,44,545 Rs.3,39,728 Such assessment framed at the first round was set aside in appeal by the learned C.I.T.(A) by relying on the following findings:-- "The order is therefore, remanded to the Assessing Officer with the direction that the appellant may be allowed an opportunity to produce before him copies of assessment orders of other M.P.As. and also any appellate decisions. The matter should be reappraised in the light of above evidence which will be produced by the appellant during the reassessment I proceedings". This order dated 26-6-1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Authority achieved finality when none of the parties went in second appeal. Thereafter reassessment was made by simply reproducing the original assessment order when statedly the assessee failed to comply with the instructions issued by the learned First Appellate Authority , the findings with instructions have been reproduced in the quoted para. supra. The appellant/assessee again went in appeal before the learned C. I. T. (A). , Id the second round the learned C. I. T. /W. T. (A) vide impugned order by recording the following findings rejected the contentions of the appellant/assessee and maintained the assessment 1 order: "My predecessor, the learned C.I.T.(A) while setting aside the appeals for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98 during first round of appeal; directed the Assessing Officer to allow th4 appellant to produce assessment, orders of other Members of Provincial Assembly and also any appellate decision as an evidence in respect of his claim. According to the Assessing Officer, the appellant was provided ample opportunity to furnish above said evidence with regard to the claim of exemption of allowances but he failed to do so. .In this view of the matter, II am of the considered opinion that the onus lies upon the appellant to prove his contention with documentary evidence which he could not. I am also inclined to agree with the Assessing Officer that allowances received by the appellant do not fulfill the conditions stipulated in clause (39) of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance." This has brought, the appellant/assessee in appeal in this Tribunal. The learned A.R. repeated his arguments by submitting that clause 39 of the Second Schedule of the Ordinance 1979 (repealed) has provided exemption for allowances like office maintaining allowance. traveling allowance, subsidy, accommodation allowance. The learned A.R. further submitted that such allowances correspondingly have been utilized to pay for the such expenditure which are incidental with the working as public representative, so also pleaded for exemption as claimed, vis-a-vis exclusion from income liable to tax. When the attention of the learned A.R. was drawn that the first round of appeal finally reached its logical end on framing of reassessment as per directions in appeal order setting aside of the original assessment, order on this the learned A.R. has no words to express as arguments for assailing any more the same issues, which have been settled once for all after setting aside in the first round of appeal at the first appeal stage. Keeping in view the discussion supra, the arguments placed at bar before us and the perusal of record we do not find any merits in these appeals, therefore, these are dismissed. H.B.T./961/Tax(Trib.) Appeals dismissed