This further appeal at the instance of the. Assessee pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000 has been directed against the impugned order dated 17.1.2004 recorded by CIT(A), Bahawalpur, whereby the Revenue is aggrieved by setting aside of the assessment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee/appellant was booked as new case on the basis of survey form. According to the Assessing Officer, various notices on a number of occasions were issued and properly served upon the assessee but remained un-complied with. Thus, the Assessing Officer finalized ex-parte assessment by resorting to Section 63 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, at an income of Rs. 12,22,100/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), Bahawalpur, who set 'aside the assessment for de novo proceedings with the direction to verify the facts of the case.
3. The learned A.R. Has vehemently argued that case of the appellant was booked as new assessee as a result of survey form submitted by Mr. Munir Ahmad and ex- parte assessment was framed by ignoring this aspect of the case that the assessee is already a tax-payer existing at 'NTN 24-11- 0957318 and return for the charge year had already been accepted under USAS. He has stressed that in the survey form, it was clearly mentioned by the assessee that he is an existing assessee at afore-mentioned NTN in the name and style M/s. Malik & Co. Shopping Centre, R.Y. Khan, but the Assessing Officer did not pay and heed to it and finalized double assessment for the same year.
4. On the contrary, the learned D.R. Has submitted that since, the assessee did not adopt cooperative attitude with the Assessing Officer by absenting himself before him, therefore, he was justified to pass in ex-parte order. He has also maintained that by setting aside the assessment for de novo proceedings in order to further probe in the-matter, .The learned CIT(A) has not caused any prejudice to the interest of assessee. Ln other words, the assessee has been afforded another opportunity of being heard, which should have been availed by him, Further, he has read before us the operative portion of impugned order passed by learned CIT(A), which is in the following manner:- "Scrutiny of assessm ent record consisting of one volume reveals that the case was booked on the basis of survey form submitted by Mr. Munir Ahmad r/o. 50/B, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Rahim Yar Khan and assessed income for 1999-2000 at NTN 24-11- 0049162. Ln the survey form, the appellant clearly stated his NTN 24-11-0957317, which was not considered by the learned Assessing Officer and finalized double assessm ent for 1999-2000. Lt is further noted that no single notice was served upon the assessee, which shows that the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the ex-parte assessm ent order was incorrect. On perusal of copy of return submitted by the A.R., it is observed that the appellant is an existing assessee at NTN 24-11-0957317 in name and style M/s. Malik and Company Shopping Centre, Rahim Yar Khan.
We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties and also carefully gone through the relevant record available on file. The facts emanating from case file amply reveal that the assessee had categorically stated before the CIT(A) that for the same assessment year i.e., 1999- 2000 the assessm ent stood finalized under USAS in the light of Circular No. 18 of'1999 relevant to the provision of Section 59, of the. Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at NTN 24-11-0049162 whereas he is existing assessee at NTN 24-11-0957317. Moreover, it is clearly reflecting that Assessing Officer proceeded ex-parte u/S. 63 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the basis of single notice, which cannot be considered proper service from judicial point of view. Thus, in view of the afore-mentioned vital reason, we confirm the-setting aside with modification in the impugned order of CIT(A) to the extent that the assessee will provide proof of his original assessment under USAS. If it is intact, the second assessment should be cancelled.