' This is a review application filed by the complainant/applicant regarding the order, dated 14-2- 2004 in Review Application No,195 of 2003 which related to the findings/decision, dated 10-10-2003 in Complaint No,1013-L of 2003.
2. The facts are that the complaint had been filed against the show-cause notice, dated 26-3-2003 in which the taxation officer had expressed his intention to estimate the applicant's sales for the assessm ent years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 at the allegedly excessive figures of Rs,13,500,000 and Rs,14,850,000 against the declared sales of Rs,1,750,000 and Rs,903,548 respectively for the two years. The contention of the complainant/applicant was that a survey of the business had already been conducted by a survey team on 22-6-2000 in which the sales had been estimated at Rs,2,850,000 while a show-cause notice had been issued on the basis of a purported enquiry report of the Circle Inspector, dated 22-3-2002. The complainant/applicant relied upon the decision in Complaint No,570-L of 2002 in which it was observed that while survey estimates were binding on the assessee these were also binding on the department. In the findings/decision it was, however, observed that while the estimates of the Inspector could be exaggerated the fact was that no assessm ent had been framed and only show-cause notices had been issued. It was observed that the complainant was free to express his point of view before the Assessing Officer and that no maladministration had been established. The applicant filed a review application against the findings/decision in which it was reiterated that the findings/decision in complaint No,570 of 2002 be followed in the applicant's case and directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to assess the applicant's sales at the figure estimated by the survey team. This contention was not accepted and in this connection para. 3 of the review order read as under:- "(3) The review application has been considered and the learned advocate for the applicant heard.
It is, however, seen that the findings/decision referred to in the review application are quite distinguishable because in that case the complainant had himself declared better sales than the sales estimated by the survey team and it was, therefore, recommended that the declared sales be accepted. In the applicant's case, on the other hand, the declared sales in both the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 are considerably lower than the survey estimates. Furthermore it is not known whether the survey team was aware of the stock available at the workshop at Harbanspura, Lahore referred to in the report of the Inspector. Under the circumstances, no reason has been found to review the findings in the complaint. It is up to the applicant to establish its case before the Assessing Officer. The review application is accordingly rejected."
3. In the present review application the above para. 3 of the review order, dated 14-2-2004 has been reproduced and in this context the following points have been raised
(i) With regard to the observation as to whether the survey team was aware of the stock available at the Harbanspura workshop it has not been considered that the survey team was bound to visit each and every place whether business or residential. Moreover, the complainant had himself declared stock available at Harbanspura in the survey form.
(ii) Under section 61A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the income tax authorities were under legal obligation to utilize the survey information in the income-tax assessments of the tax payers.
(iii) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has in numerous cases directed the Assessing Officers to adopt the sales agreed/ assessed by the survey team. The Federal Tax Ombudsman has also held in his findings/decision (copy enclosed with the review application) that sales estimated by the survey team are binding on the income tax authorities.
(iv) It is the duty of the Court to apply the correct law irrespective of whether it has been relied upon by the party or not. (Several decisions of the Supreme Court have been referred to in this context).
' It has been prayed in the review application that the Assessing Officer be directed to adopt the sales estimated by the survey team.
4. The contentions in the review application have been considered and the learned advocate for the applicant has been heard. No merit has, however, been found in this second review application for the following reasons:---
(i) With regard to the point (i) in the review application referred to in para. 3 above it is not acceptable that the survey team visiting the applicant's show room could estimate the stock available at the workshop situated at a different place.
(ii) Section 61A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not place any legal obligation on the Assessing Officer to adopt the estimates of the survey teams in making the assessments. The section only provides that the information obtained during survey "may be used" for purposes of assessm ent.
(iii) The findings referred to by the applicant in fact relate to Complaints No,582 of 2001 etc. Decided on 16-8-2001. In these findings it was held that the signatures of an assessee on the survey form could not be treated as an agreement by him but where an assessee did not object to the evaluation of the survey team within a reasonable time such evaluation would be deemed to have been accepted by the assessee. This finding in no way supports the applicant's case.
(iv) Point No,(iv) in the review application referred to in para. 3 above is of a general nature and it does not seem to have any direct relevance to the matter in hand.
5. During the hearing, the applicant's representative also reiterated the contention that the Inspector had not prepared any inventory of the stock estimated at Rs,2,500,000 and that there was also no valid basis for the formula of adopting sale at six times of the stock. These contentions have, however, already been considered in the findings/ decision, dated 10-10-2003 and in any case, the findings in no way imply that the contents of the show-cause notice are necessarily correct or that these cannot be validly disputed. The findings only were that there was no adequate reason for intervention at that stage and that the applicant could rebut the department's contentions during the assessment proceedings.
6. In the light of the above, no merit has been found in the review application which is accordingly rejected.
Application rejected.