' SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER -- Titled appeal has been filed at the instance of the taxpayer calling in question the impugned order dated 04.11.2013 passed by the learned CIR(A)
Multan. The sole grievance of the taxpayer is that the learned CIR(A) was not justified to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution. The taxpayer also challenged the amended order Linder Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (IR) being time-barred.
2. Facts in brief are that the taxpayer is an individual, filed her income tax return for the tax year 2007 declaring business come at Rs, 200,000. It was observed by the assessing officer that the taxpayer invested Rs, 20,80,000/- for the purchase of immovable property. Therefore, on the basis of said information, a show-cause notice under Section 122(1) and with 122(5) & (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 dated 05.11.2012 was issued. The notice was duly complied with and written arguments alongwith relevant documents were provided. The explanation submitted by the taxpayer was found unsatisfactory, hence the learned DCIR amended the assessment order under Section 122(1) read with Section 122(5)(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and total income was assessed at Rs, 26,30,000/- against the declared/already assessed income of Rs, 2,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with the above treatment, the taxpayer approached the learned first appellate authority who vide an order dated 04.11.2013 dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer on the basis of non- prosecution. Hence the instant appeal by the taxpayer.
3. Both the parties have been heard and relevant orders perused. At the very outset the learned counsel of the taxpayer raised a preliminary objection that the assessment made under Section 122(5(i) is badly time-barred. It was submitted by the learned counsel that original assessment in the present case was made on 30.09.2007 while notice under Section 122(1) read with Sections 122(5) & (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued on 05.11.2012. It was argued that assessm ent framed under Section 122 is not maintainable being framed after lapse of statutory limitation as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. It was submitted that as per provisions of law the DCIR was bound to amend the assessment on or before 30.09.2012. In this regard reference was made to the reported judgment cited as [(2013) 107 Tax 141 (Trib)].
4. The learned D.R. On the other hand opposed the arguments advanced by the learned CIR(A) and submitted that a number of opportunities have been provided to the taxpayer but the taxpayer has failed to avail the same. He prayed for maintaining of the impugned findings recorded by both the authorities below.
5. After hearing the rival parties and going through the record available with us, we are of the considered view that the contention of the taxpayer is correct. Admittedly, the deemed assessment in this case was completed on 30.09.2007 while notice under Section 122(1) read with Section 122(5) & (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued on 05.11.2012. As per law the assessing officer was bound to amend the deemed assessment on or before 30.9.2012 in which he failed to do so and amended assessm ent was 30.09.2013. Even otherwise the proceedings for amending deemed assessm ent was also initiated by issuing show-cause notice on 05.11.2012 which is also after the prescribed time limit. The reported judgment cited as [( 2013) 107 Tax 141 (Trib)] is also on all fours to the case of the taxpayer. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced for sake of convenience as under:- "Notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance was issued on 13.05.2010 which was duly responded by the taxpayer with the contention that deemed assessment in the case stood made on the date of filing of return (29th September, 2009) and as per law prevailing at that point of time, amended assessm ent could only be made within five years i,e, upto 29th September, 2009 and that amendment brought to sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the Ordinance by Finance Act, 200.9, whereby limitation was extended upto the expiry of five years from the end of the financial year in which the Commissioner has issued the assessment order to the taxpayer would not be applicable in the case."
6. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the supra judgment, we are constrained to observe that the amended assessm ent order is time-barred, hence not maintainable in the eye of law.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned CIR(A) is hereby vacated and the amended assessm ent order dated 30.06.2013 is cancelled.
7. Since we have decided the case purely on the legal ground hence other grounds need not to be discussed.
8. It is ordered accordingly.