2003 PLP 1604 (PTD)

(b) the total income of the complainant has been under assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or has been the subject to excessive relief or refund under the Ordinance.

6. The only information that had come into the possession of DCIT, as confronted by him in his notice "and as mentioned in the consequent order passed under section 65, was that the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,500 on account of social security but did not claim in the statement of account.

7. The counsel has submitted on behalf of the complainant that, without prejudice to the fact that omission to claim an expenditure. neither causes any income to escape assessment nor causes under assessment of assessee's total income or its assessment at too low a rate of tax or causes the total income to be the subject of excessive-relief or refund under the Ordinance. He further submitted that it was explained to DCIT that the amount of Rs.5,500 was part of the aggregate miscellaneous expenditure amounting to Rs.10,729 as under:

"Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 10,729 Entertainment Rs.3,600 Social Security Rs.5,500 Other expenses Rs.1,629 Total:-- Rs.10,729"

8. The counsel has placed reliance, in support of the view canvassed by him, upon the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2905 wherein the Tribunal recorded:-- "Brief facts on record are that assessee was accepted under Self Assessment Scheme. Later it appeared that assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs.10,188 on account of electricity while his actual bills were Rs.15,

758. It was considered to be a piece of evidence amounting to definite information and the case was re-opened and subsequently assessed. The assessee argument before first Appellate Authority and before us with lessor claim of an expenditure may be a piece of evidence but it did not give the impression that the income of the assessee has either been underassessed or escaped assessment in any manner. If the assessee had claimed more expenses, income would have been reduced. He, therefore, placed reliance upon 1988 PTD (Trib.) 973 and I.T.A. No. 1726/B of 1998 order, dated 5-12-1995 wherein the Tribunal has held that such an information is surely a piece of evidence which results in decreasing income be a certain amount and thus, it does not give justification for re opening of assessment." The Tribunal therefore, held:

"The law requires a piece of information covered under the term definite information which leads to believe that the income of the assessee has either escaped or under assessed. Had the assessee claimed more expenses the result would have been decrease in income and not enhancement. This situation is not covered under section

65. The result of above discussion is that the re-opening is considered without legal justification. The same is, therefore, cancelled."

9. The DCIT Mr. Muhammad Saleem has invited attention to an unreported decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.3414/LB/1998, dated 30-5-1999 relied upon by the DCIT in his order where a contrary view has been upheld. Since the unreported decision has been announced without considering the decision reported in 1988 PTD (Trib.) 973 which has been re-affirmed in another decision reported in 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2905, reliance placed on it is untenable.

10. The initiation of proceedings under section 65, therefore, is against the law and maladministration is proved.

11. It is recommended that:-- (i) The CIT, Faisalabad Zone takes suo motu cognizance of the case and annuls the order based on proceedings under section 65 that are ab initio void in law. (ii) Compliance to be reported within 45 days of this order. C.M.A./657/FTO Order accordingly