1. These appeals are directed against the single combined order dated 8.6.2002 passed by the learned CIT/WT(A). Common grounds have been submitted in respect of identical issues involved in all the years.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant/assessee was treated as assessee in default on failure to deduct the tax in respect of amount of purchases on passing a single combined order for all the three years, it was on confronting the amount of purchases and the worked out tax demand u/S. 50(4), that in reply the appellant/assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer the details where tax deduction has been made and deposited by the company. The Assessing Officer for each of the three years also determined the amount of tax where transactions involved are below the minimum thresh-hold of Rs. 25,000/-. The amount of tax in respect of exemption certificates was also worked out in assessm ent years 1995-96 arid 1996-97, whereas 1994-95 exemption certificate case was nil. The amount of tax deducted by the appellant/assessee, the amount of tax where the transaction is below 25,000/- and the amount against exemption certificate cases were one by one deducted from the total tax confronted for each year that a tax demand was worked out. Out of this net tax demand 50%, tax was taken as paid and balance was determined as payable such amount of tax payable in the hands of appellant/assessee was made liable for an additional tax u/S. 86, that the total tax demand against the appellant/assessee was worked out. : The learned first Appellate Authority upheld the order u/Ss. 52/86 which has brought the appellant/assessee is in appeal in this Tribunal.
3. The learned A.R. At the very beginning of his arguments has submitted that the orders for assessm ent years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are hit by limitation as it could have been passed within the limitation period of four years as prescribed for an action u/S. 156 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance after a judgment with citation as (2004) 89 Tax 188 (H.C., Karachi). The learned A.R.
4. Elaborated the facts that the assessment order is dated 20.5.2000 whereas the limitation for 1994- 95 and 1995-96 expired on 30.6.1998 and 30.6.1999 respectively because it was to be counted at the end of the financial year and financial year here ended on 3.6.1994 and 30.6.1995.
5. The learned D.R. When asked, failed to produce any case-law contrary to it, so as to establish that the assessm ent is within the prescribed limitation.
6. Keeping in view the citation quoted by the learned A.R. Which we are bound to follow, so we do not have any hesitation in holding that order for assessment years 1994- 95 and 1995-96 is hit by the limitation and orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Karachi is in all fours to the matter before us. The assessee's appeal succeeds for these two years as the order u/Ss. 52/86 is annulled being barred by time.
7. For the assessm ent year 1996-97 it has been pleaded by the learned A.R. That Assessing Officer failed to specify the amount and parties liable for tax deduction despite the fact that complete record was produced, so the Assessing Officer is debarred to take the entire amount of purchases as liable to tax deduction, in support of it the learned A.R. Has referred to citation as (2002 PTD (Trib.) 3333, The learned D.R. Has supported the .Order passed at the first appeal stage by submitting that required exercise has been done by the Assessing Officer as is evident from the body of the order whereafter deducting the amount of tax which has been deducted and deposited by the appellant-company, secondly tax on transactions with parties below 25,000/- and tax where exemption certificates were issued that the tax payable by assessee has bean arrived at. Here if is pertinent to point out that neither learned A.R. Nor learned D.R. Has said anything about the 50% of tax paid as given in the order u/Ss. 52/86 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
8. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record we deem it to be fair, just and proper to vacate the order passed by both the authorities below in respect of assessment year 1996-97 and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing a proper speaking order after affording a proper opportunity of being heard .To the appellant/assessee. All the three appeals are disposed of in the manner as indicated above (Sections referred to in this order are of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979).