NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- In this further appeal under Section 136(1) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as it existed at the relevant time, following questions are stated to have arisen out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore, dated 18.12.1998:- "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating-the two different accounts maintained by the appellant in the name of the director recording huge verifiable transactions of sale of tickets and receipt thereof were representing loan from director?
(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal fell in error in changing the nature of trade transactions as of advance/loan account?
(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case^ a trade credit can be treated as loan for the purpose of Section 12(18) of the Ordinance?
(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case any amount/advance received in the nature of trade could be treated as loan?
(5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when an amount has been deposited by a director through proper bank voucher directly on realization of advance for tickets, the same can be treated as lean, in terms of Section 12(18) of the Ordinance?
(6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating a bank "transfer" entry (i.e. Transaction within the banks without cash involvement) as a cash loan falling within the purview of Section 12(18) of the Ordinance?
(7) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision of Section 12(18) are applicable where it has been proved that the transaction was made on the specified date through bank?
(8) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, amount neither having been declared nor shown as loan can be treated as loan by the taxing authorities for the purpose of Section 12(18)?
(9) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, had the Tribunal jurisdiction to remit the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to record his finding on the. Issue of "Sale Promotion Expenses"?
(10) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Tribunal has failed to record any reasons to substantiate its finding, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance out of the profit and loss account expenses with the use of stock-phrase that "the addition made out or profit and loss account under the head telephone and postage,' printing and stationery and miscellaneous are reasonable and therefore call for no interference?"
2. The appellant is a private limited company and during the assessment year in question viz. 1997- 98 derived income from a travel agency. As against declared net loss of Rs. 21,719/-, by way of the assessm ent order, dated 25.3.1998 the Assessing Officer computed the total income for the year at Rs. 15,00,829/-. In the process an addition of Rs. 10,12,000/- as deemed income was made by invoking the provisions of Section 12(18) of the late Ordinance. That amount, according to the Assessing Officer, was received by the company on 2.4.1997 as temporary loan in cash which attracted the said provisions of the late Ordinance. The assessee failed both before CIT(A) as well as the learned Tribunal.
3. All three forums, the Assessing Officer, learned CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal refused to accept the contention of the assessee that the amounts added towards income under the said provisions of the Ordinance in act concerned the account maintained by the Chief Executive of the assessee- company for payments received by him directly from his personal client's for issuance of tickets, It was explained that the Chief Executive maintained two different accounts, one in which the payments were received and the other reflected the issuance of tickets. According to the above three forums, the amounts having been received without cross cheques the said provisions of the late Ordinance were attracted to the facts in hand.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the. Parties we will readily agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue raised in questions Nos. 1 to 8 as reproduced above already stands resolved against the revenue in our judgment reported as in re: Messrs Micropak (Pvt) Ltd. v.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2. Others (200I PTD 1180). In that judgment recorded by this Bench it was inter alia held that an addition of the kind could not have been made unless the disputed amount was claimed as a loan by the assessee. Since admittedly the amount added by invoking provisions of Section 12(18) of the late Ordinance was not claimed as a loan by the assessee-company, the addition of the kind could not have been made. Also we had expressed the view that no addition could be made nor the defence taken by the appellants taxpayers rejected without recording a finding of fact that these sums were injected in the business and were used as capital, circulating or otherwise, In other words the' explanation made by the. Assessee .Could have been demolished only by ruling that the alleged amounts introduced in the accounts of the company were factually used in the business and, therefore, could be treated as "loan" taken for catering the capital needs of the company. The exercise has admittedly not been done in the case in hand.
5. Therefore, for the various reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, we will return a negative answer to questions Nos. 1 to 8. The questions Nos. 9 and 10 are not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.