ORDER These appeals by an AOP arise out of Order passed by the IAC u/s. 664 in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction.
2.It is the appellant's contention that it's Return of Income for 2000-01 had been rightly accepted as filed as it was consistent with the conditionalities as laid down in the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year.
3. AR of appellant explains that the IAC has acted u/s. 66A on the wholly mistaken view that (i) tax demand incidental to declared income had been wrongly calculated, and (b) "lump sum" addition made to declared income was violative of the conditionalities laid down in the SAS for the year and consequently he had held that the Return was required to have been ousted from SAS and processed under Normal Law which was not done and instead the allegedly 'defective' Return was accepted u/s. 59A thereby justifying intervention by the IAC u/s. 66A-as the assessment made u/s. 59A was allegedly both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The AR submits that the income, tax demand on declared income of Rs. 13,10,653 cited by the appellant in it's Return for the year indeed aggregates Rs. 3,48,401/- and not Rs. 2,53,144/- as wrongly calculated by the IAC Secondly, the AR emphasizes that the appellant has not infact made any ad hoc lump sum addition to declared income as alleged by the IAC and instead it is submitted that add backs of inadmissible claim out of P & L expenses had been made Headwise totaling Rs. 5,10,653/- and added back to the declared income as per P & L NO of Rs 8,0, 000/- to evolve Total Income of Rs. 1310653/- and it is vehemently asserted that there was absolutely nothing wrong with this methodology in the context of SAS for 2000- 01 as this was not an ad hoc lump sum addition to declared income.
4. The following 'case law' is referred to by the AR:?
(1) PLD 1981 SC 293
(2) 1995 PTD 1128 ,
(3) 1992 PTD 954
5. The DR reiterates what has been stated by the IAC in his Order u/s. 66A.
6. We have heard both sides, examined the available record and perused the cited case-law and we agree with appellant that neither has "less tax" been aid than that stipulated under for the year nor has any "ad hoc" lump Sum addition been made to Returned Income. The add backs as made are Headwise addback of patently inadmissible amount out of total expenditure claim preferred and this is evident from the appellant's computation of income as appended with the Return of Income. Under the given facts and circumstances, therefore, we find that the IAC has wrongly exercised jurisdiction u/s. 66A and his Order is held to be a nullity in the eye of law and is hereby annulled. 1
7. The appeal succeeds.
8. Assessee's appeal against order passed u/s. 156/66A by the IAC dated 12-2-2002 as a sequel to the main appeal filed against IAC's order u/s. 66A, dated 31-12-2001 which appeal stands disposed off by the Tribunal. The only ground relevant to assessee's appeal against order u/s. 156/66A, dated 12-2-2002 pertains to alleged lump sum addition made by the assessee in the Return of Income filed.
That matter also stands disposed off in Tribunal order [ITA No. 279/LB/02].