1990 PLP (Trib (PTD)

This appeal has been filed at the instance of Department to agitate against order dated 8‑8‑1984 passed by the learned A.A.C., Range‑B, Multan, in respect of assessment year 1983‑

84. The Respondent, individual, is a vendor of cycles.

2. None was present for the Respondent when called out. The appeal is, therefore, taken up for decision by resort to Rules 20 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules.

3. The learned D.R. narrated that return was filed on 7‑9‑1983 declaring income at Rs.18,

830. The assessing officer took up proceedings and scrutinised accounts whereafter he issued a notice under section 62 of the Ordinance on 24‑3‑1984 seeking reply by 29‑3‑1984 on certain specific points. In fact this letter was issued after enquiries by the concerned Inspector and contained details of purchases which aggregated Rs.1,295,

615. It inter alia said:‑ "All these facts clearly indicate that you have suppressed G.P. and committed concealment by declaring inaccurate particulars of your income. Total purchases according to abovementioned records come to Rs.1,295,615, I intend to estimate your sacs at Rs.1,500,000 keeping in view the volume of purchases mentioned above. I also intend to apply G.P. of 15% as is being applied in the same nature of business. You are hereby called upon to show‑cause as to why the proposed treatment should not be meted out. Your case is fixed for 29‑3‑1984."

4. When confronted with this situation the Respondent appeared before the assessing officer and offered to be assessed at an income of Rs.85,

000. This fact; was not only recorded on the order‑sheet but the Respondent submitted a revised return dated 15‑4‑1984 declaring income at Rs.85,000, together with a "note" clearly confirming that the originally declared income Rs.18,830 is revised in view of details of purchases with which the Respondent was confronted vide nonce under section

62. The assessment was then made on this agreed. Figure of Rs.85,

000. The learned D.R. continued that despite this assessment the Respondent filed an appeal before the learned A.A.C. and took the stand that the business was run by Mr. Abdul Sattar as in the past. After his death, the widow and other legal heirs inherited the business and widow's brother Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhry merely looked after it. Since this gentleman was not authorised to enter into agreement, the one made by him with the assessing officer was not binding on the real owners (= Mst. Maqsooda Begum and others) and be quashed. This the learned AA.C. accepted and then granted some relief. The learned D.R. persisted that the learned A.A.C. erred in discarding the valid agreement entered voluntarily and with the free will under the terms of which, not only the return of income was revised, but the fact was confirmed through a reply in response to notice under section 62 issued by the assessing officer on 28‑3‑1984.

5. On scrutiny, I find that the original return of income for the year‑under‑consideration filed on 27‑9‑1983 declaring income at Rs.18,830 was signed by the same Mr. Abdul Rashid was filed revised return this year at Rs.85,000 on 15‑4‑1984. The same gentleman attended the proceedings before the two authorities and also gave a reply to the notice under section

62. Moreover, the record is indicative that this very gentleman (= Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhry) signed the return for the succeeding years of 1984‑85 and 1985‑86 and as also the earlier returns for the assessment years 1981‑82 and 1980‑

81. In fact, as per record, after the death of Mr. Abdul Sattar all returns were filed upto the assessment year 1985‑86 by this gentleman who also attended the proceedings and submitted necessary details and participated in framing of assessments. Therefore, the learned D.R. concluded, it was too late in the day to accept the plea that he was not the assessee or the real owner. Moreover, it has already been held, by this Tribunal in a decision reported as (1988) 58 Tax 219 (Trib.) of which was the author, that service of notice on a person who has been regularly attending proceedings is valid and lawful. On the basis of this decision the filing of returns by Mr. Abdul Rashid and his participation with the proceedings in the past, as also in the succeeding years, cannot now strip him off his position as regular assessee or a nominee of the assessee, to enter into agreement for purposes of agreement. Again, an agreement entered voluntarily with the assessing officer cannot be realised as bad, because in the eye of law an agreement is a contract binding on both the parties being a result of an offer and acceptance by the two sides. An agreed assessment thus, becomes binding on the assessee as also on the Department. This view has been expressed by this Tribunal in a decision reported as 1988 P T D (Trib.)

222. In yet another decision on I.T.A. No.2095 to 2099(LB) of 1985‑86, decided on 21‑9‑1988 (of which, I was the author) sanctity of the agreement between the assessee and the Department has been upheld. My conclusion, therefore, is that the conduct of Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhry as respects filing of the return, attending the proceedings and making agreement with the assessing officer clearly burdens him with such responsibility which cannot be shaken off by shifting the stand as was put up before the learned A.A.C. who clearly erred by accepting it. As the agreed assessment which, in this case, was made on filing a revised return when confronted with unrebutable evidence, has thus, attained sanctity which cannot be assailed. The order by the learned A.A.C. is, therefore, VACATED so that the agreed assessment STAND SACROSANCT. M.B.A./909/T Order accordingly.