1989 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Total income. Rs.24,091

2. The assessments carried out by the Income Tax Officer under the normal law were as follows: Name of the appellant Mst. Zohra Bibi. Share income from the registered firm. Rs.30,734 Income from house property. Rs.915 Addition voluntarily made to avail the benefit of the self Assessment scheme. Rs.14,000 Total income. Rs.45,649 Malik Abdul Nabi. Share income from the registered firm. Rs.46,130 Income from house property. Rs.7,314 Addition voluntarily made to avail the benefit of the self Assessment scheme. Rs.3,000 Total income. Rs.56,444 Share income from the registered firm. Rs.30,753 Malik Khalid Mahmood. Addition voluntarily made to avail the benefit of self-assessment scheme. Rs.14,900 Total income. Rs.54,653

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the assessment orders, the appellants filed separate appeals before the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) agitating the amounts added by the Assessing Officer on account of additions voluntarily declared by the appellants while filing returns under the self-assessment scheme for the charge year 1987-88. He examined the matter thoroughly and rejected the appeal of each appellant as being devoid of any merit. The present appeals are directed against the order of rejection passed by the appellate authority below in each appeal separately on 20-11-1987. Each appellant has challenged the addition made to his income as indicated hereinabove. .

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Z.A. Sheikh, and the learned Departmental Representative, Mr. Aftab Ahmad Kohati, and have also perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that voluntary additions had been incorporated by the appellants in their respective returns in order to enjoy the benefit of self-assessment scheme, that these voluntary additions were relevant for the self-assessment scheme alone and had nothing to do with the process of assessment under the normal law, that the additions shown by the appellants in their respective returns could have been adopted only if the assessments were to be made under the self-assessment scheme in terms of Section 59 (1) of the Ordinance and not otherwise and that there was absolutely no justification with the Assessing Officer' to consider these additions in connection with the assessments completed by him under Section 62 of the Ordinance and on the same token it was not proper on the part of the first appellate authority to have confirmed the action of the former. Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that while incorporating the additions in their respective returns, the appellants had specifically indicated that the additional income had been shown solely for the purpose of receiving statutory advantages under the self-assessment scheme, that no separate column having been provided for this purpose in the Form of Return, the appellants had made no mistake by showing the voluntary additions against the column meant for other income in connection with the self-assessment scheme, that the additions had been mentioned against item (iv) relating to "other income" falling under column No.5 of the Form of return meant for the disclosure of income from other sources like dividends, interest and royalties or fees and that for these reasons the appellants could not have been burdened with the disputed additions while assessing them under the normal law.

7. The learned Departmental Representative has maintained that on receiving notices under Section 61 of the Ordinance, the appellants had come to know that their cases had not been entertained under the self-assessment scheme and, as such, they could conveniently submit revised returns after deleting the additions shown in the earlier ones, that the Assessing Officer had no alternative but to accept the amounts of additions mentioned by the appellant's themselves as the same had been indicated under column 5 (iv) of the Form of Return; thereby signifying that additional income had been yielded by some independent sources other than dividends, interest, royalties or fees and that the self-assessment scheme permitted the appellants to make independent lump sum additions under any head of income but they did not do so with the result that the additions shown by them in their respective returns had to be adopted while 'completing assessments under Section 62 of the Ordinance as being income from some other independent source.

8. After a careful appraisal of the averments of the learned representatives of the parries, I am constrained to observe that the submissions made on behalf of the appellants are without any substance and there is ample weight in the points made by the learned Departmental Representative. When it had been brought home to the appellants by the Assessing Officer that he intended to assess them under the normal law, they were expected to have been vigilant enough in their own interest in filing the revised returns to replace those submitted under the self-assessment scheme so as to get rid of the mischief of the voluntary additions indicated therein. Their indolence in this regard militates against them for which they deserve no indulgence on this score. Further, the fact that the additional income had been mentioned against the column meant for the disclosure of income from other sources precludes the appellants from contesting the disputed additions because in this situation the Assessing Officer had been left with no option but to adopt the voluntary additions for the purpose of the appellants' assessments under the normal law. He has done nothing more than accepting the appellants' own declared versions. So, his action is not open to any exception and the same is the case with the impugned order of the appellate authority below. A casual mention by the appellant to their respective returns of making avail of the self-assessment scheme to relation to the additions voluntarily made by them does not improve their position in any manner. The fact remains that the additional amounts had been shown against the column required to indicate income from other sources.

9. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants lacks cogency that there being no separate column in the Form of Return for stating against it the round additions to qualify for assessment under the self-assessment scheme, the appellants cannot be penalized for showing the voluntary additions against the column meant for other income. It was open to the appellants, in terms of paragraph 3 of the self-assessment scheme for 1987-88, to make lump sum additions under any head of income and add such amounts to their capital. The appellant, Malik Khalid Mahmood, could easily have shown voluntary addition under the head "income from business, and the other two appellants could have done so either under the head "income from business" or under the head "income from house property". They, however, chose to select item (iv) of column No.5 relating to the "income from other sources" and mentioned voluntary additions against it, which made it manifestly clear that they had received income from some other sources as well. On being called upon to appear before the Assessing Officer in connection with the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 62 of the Ordinance, none of the appellants bothered to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to establish the contrary. In this situation, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in adding the disputed amount to the respective income of each appellant.

10. For the reasons stated above, I find nothing wrong with the orders of the authorities below. As a result, the appeal of each appellant is dismissed, as being devoid of any substance and force. M.B.A./690/T Appeal dismissed.