' SYED MUHAMMAD JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---Through this appeal the appellant/taxpayer has challenged the validity of the Order dated 30-9-2010 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (A-III), Karachi @ Hyderabad on the following grounds:- "(2) The learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was not justified to ignore that amended assessm ent order passed under sections 122(4)(5)/177(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, by the DCIR Audit was without specific reference to any clause of subsection (5) of section .122 (ibid) which rendered the order nullity in the eyes of law.
(3) That the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was not justified to ignore that no "definite information" within the meaning of subsection (5) of section 122 of Income. Tax Ordinance, 2001 was available with the DCIR Audit or brought on record before embarking upon amended assessm ent.
(4) That the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) has erred in reducing/decreasing the estimated sale price Of fine rice and broken rice, instead of deleting the addition in Rice Mill account by accepting the declared rates, when the estimation of sale price rates was made by DCIR Audit on presumption, without any verification and material brought on record.
(5) That learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) has erred in restricting the disallowances out of Diesel Oil expenses at 5% instead of deleting the same which was made by DCIR Audit on supposition, without verification and placing any material on record.
(6) That learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was not justified to curtail & restrict the disallowance out of various profit & loss expenses at 1/5th instead of deleting the same which were added back merely on stock phrases without any verification and material brought on record."
2. None appeared on behalf of the respective parties; therefore, the matter is taken up for decision on merit.
3. As regards ground No,2 taken by the appellant, it is observed that even the revised return filed by appellant under section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The learned Commissioner can further amend the order under section 122(4)(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Section 122(4)
(5) is reproduced hereunder for the sake of facility:--
(4) Where an assessm ent order (hereinafter referred to as the "original assessment") has been amended under subsection ('1) or (3), the Commissioner may further amend, [as many times as may be necessary,] the original assessment within the later of---
(a) five years '[from the end of the financial year in which] the Commissioner has issued or is treated as having issued the original assessment order to the taxpayer; or
(b) one year [from the end of the financial year in which] the Commissioner has issued or is treated as having issued the amended assessment order to the taxpayer.
[(5) An assessm ent order in respect of tax year, or an assessment year, shall only be amended under subsection (1) and an amended assessment for that year shall only be further amended under subsection (4) where, on the basis of definite information acquired from an audit or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that -
(i) any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; or
(ii) total income has been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or has been the subject of excessive relief or refund; or
(iii) any amount under a head of income has been misclassified].
4. From perusal of the above said section it can be seen that the Commissioner is fully empowered to amend an assessm ent for that year or can further be amended under subsection (4) on the basis of definite information acquired from audit or otherwise. The provisions of law are to be read as it is and are to be applied in their ordinary English meaning. Section 120 read with sections 122, 209, 210, 211 and 262 have been drafted and approved by the legislature with wisdom. They are to be read and applied by understanding the same in the manner its plain language demands. I am of the considered opinion that after having filed the revised return by the taxpayer it is not obligatory on the Taxation Officer to accept the revised return filed under section 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The revised return filed by the taxpayer/respondent does not cover the quantum of discrepancies confronted by the Additional Commissioner Income Tax, Division-I, Hyderabad. The said discrepancies were enumerated by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue in his order. However, despite service of several notices to taxpayer by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, no compliance was made by the taxpayer/respondent. Therefore, it was the prerogative of the DCIR to reject the revised return. The grounds taken by the taxpayer/respondent in this regard are not tenable in the eyes of law and appeal on this ground is dismissed.
5. As far as the other factual grounds taken by the taxpayer/respondent perusal of the order of the learned CIR(A) reveals that the learned CIR(A) has already granted sufficient relief by reducing/decreasing the estimate sale price of fine rice and broken rice whereby the learned CIR(A) has reduced/curtailed the fair price of rice from Rs,15 to Rs,12 as against declared rate of Rs,11.75 per kg and in respect of broken rice reduced the same from Rs,11 per kg to Rs,9.50 as against declared price of Rs,9.25 per kg.
6. As regards disallowance of Diesel Oil expenses again perusal of the order of the learned CIR(A) reveals that he has granted sufficient relief to the taxpayer by reducing the same from 20% to 5%.
The order of the learned CIR(A) on this count is also just and proper and does not require any interference.
7. As regards disallowance out of profit and loss account expense, it is observed that the same are estimated on the higher side, therefore, the same is further reduced to 10% of the amount claimed.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above.