MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. -Petitioner, a registered firm, derives income from oil mill. The declared version of the petitioner for the assessment year . 1989-90 was refected assessment of Rs.
3,44,592/- was made against declared income of Rs. 1,13,183/- . The addition was challenged but found no favour in appeal before C.I.T, as well as learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence this reference.
2. The assessee claimed benefits of C.B.R. Circular No. SRO 1(4) ST 14/90, dated 22.05.1991. The S.R.O, was issued pursuant to agreement between the cotton ginners association of Pakistan and C.B.R, where a particular formula for finalization of return was adopted for the finalization of the return filed by the members of the association. Petitioner's income on the basis of the said S.R.O, comes to Rs. 67,794/- as against declared income at Rs. 1.13.183/-.
3. The following questions of law said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, are subject- matter of this reference:-
(i) "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not ordering acceptance of declared income which was in excess of the standard laid down by the CBR and was being applied in comparable cases"?
(ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was obliged in law to apply' on the case under appeal the fair standard of expected income fixed by the C.B.R, for comparable cases"?
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of above-referred questions has submitted that Central Board of Revenue is the apex authority in the hierarchy of Federal Tax Administration and empowered not only to watch the control and guide all tax authorities under it in the execution of Income Tax Ordinance. Its instructions and directions are binding on all officers and persons in the execution of Ordinance, therefore, Income Tax authorities were bound to give and extend benefits to the petitioner under S.R.O. No. 1/(4)/ST 14/90, dated 22.05.1991. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd." {20Q2 PCTLR 795). Learned counsel then referred to the cases of "Abid Hussain v.
Commissioner of Income Tax" (1995 71 TAX 142, HC Lahore) and "Home Service Syndicate v.
Commissioner of Income Tax" (2003 PTD 2109) to contend that concession/benefit of a circular can be extended to assessee even during the pendency of his appeal as the assessment passed by Income Tax Officer is not final unless it has been determined finally after going through all the forums and in such case the finding of the last forum shall be binding and conclusive.
5. Learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, stood behind the impugned order and while supporting the impugned decision he has submitted that even on the basis of formula adopted by the ginning association, according, to. Which the assessee is allowed to revise his returns on the afore-said basis. The assessm ent in the instant case has already been finalized and assessee at this stage could not revise its return. The circular was thus not applicable to the petitioner.
6. Head learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no cavil with the proposition that the assessment order passed by Income Tax Officer is an order to the original authority. Such order is not final as it can be challenged in appeal or revision as the case may be and would be final only when it goes through all the forums and the finding of the last forum shall be binding and conclusive. The august Supreme Court has enunciated this principle in the case of "Central Board of Revenue and others v. Chand Motors"
(1992) 66 TAX 132 (SC Pak). Word pending in the instant case cannot be confined to the assessm ent order so as to restrict its meaning to "physically pending" or to its dictionary meaning.
Pending includes the pendency of appeal or revision which is provide by the statute as a matter of right. The case of the assessee is on different premises. The addition was made in the instant case on the basis of the rates given by the assessee. The assessee has once declared his income on the basis of certain rates given by assessee itself to it cannot be altered. The assessee is estopped by his conduct, therefore, the benefits of SRO 1 (4)ST 14/90, dated 22.05.1991 was not. Extended to the assessee rightly. We do not see any justification to answer the proposed question in favour of the assessee.