The titled appeal has been preferred by the Revenue calling in question the impugned order dated 2-2-2010, passed by the learned CIR (Appeals), Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in brief are that the taxpayer in this case is an Association of Persons (AOP), derives income from running a rice mills. Return for the tax year 2005 was filed declaring net income at Rs.275,000. The, case of the taxpayer was selected for audit in terms of section 177(4) of the Ordinance. Statutory notices were issued by the assessing officer which were partially complied with. Finally, the assessment in the case was amended under sections 122(1)/122(5) of the Ordinance, and as a result of this amendment income for the year was re- assessed at Rs.858,662, by estimating husking receipts at three times of consumption of electricity, applying GP rate 50% and making P&L and backs at Rs.250,000. Being aggrieved, the taxpayer went in appeal before the learned CIR(A) and assailed the treatment accorded by the assessing authority to be unjustified. The learned CIR(A) annulled the assessment on various reasons as embodied in his appellate order.
3. The learned DR on behalf of Revenue assailed the order of the learned CIR(A) as not maintainable in the eye of law. It is contended by the learned DR that the CIR(A) was not justified to annul the order under section 122(1) merely on technical grounds. It is submitted by the learned AR that the amendment of assessm ent was rightly made by the Assessing Officer which was unjustifiably cancelled by the learned CIR(A). On the contrary, the learned AR of the taxpayer supported the order passed by the learned CIR(A) and reiterated the submissions, as made before him.
4. We have looked into the matter and after due consideration; we find that no exception can be taken to the treatment as accorded by the learned CIR(A) which is found to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer has failed to acquire any 'definite information' to make amendment of assessment and only proceeded on guesswork while computing income of the taxpayer. Furthermore, no specific notice under section 122(9) of the Ordinance, was ever issued in this case which is a mandatory requirement. Under such circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the order passed by the learned CIR(A) which is hereby maintained.
5. Departmental appeal FAILS. .