' In the instant case the appellant/ taxpayer filed an appeal against an order No.5512 dated 25-9- 2013 passed by learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Faisalabad before this Tribunal, wnich was upheld vide Tribunal order I.T.A. No.826/IB/2013 dated 6-12-2013. Against this, the appellant/taxpayer filed a Miscellaneous Application for review vide MA (R) No.19/IB/2014 which was accepted and the earlier order of this Tribunal bearing I.T.A. No.826/IB/2013 dated 6-12-2013 set aside and the case is recalled for hearing.
2. This Tribunal decided Miscellaneous Application vide its order, MA (R) No.19/IB/2014 dated 29-1- 2014 in the following manner:- "4. We have heard both the representatives and perused the relevant record, law case along with other legal issues. We are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned A.R.
Therefore, the miscellaneous application for recalling filed by the Taxpayer is hereby accepted and the earlier order of this Tribunal bearing I. T.A. No. 826/IB/2013 dated 6-12-2013 is hereby set aside and the case is recalled for hearing."
3. Now the appellant/taxpayer contested its appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds:-- "(1) That without considering the fact that the taxpayer had sufficient source in shape of foreign remittance for purchase of property.
(2) That the applicant provided foreign remittance certificate to assessing authority.
(3) That without considering the fact that the assessing officer travelled beyond the scope of show cause.
(4) That without considering the fact that the assessing officer has started fishing inquiry of properties which belongs to tax year 2007.
(5) That without considering the facts assessing officer has no mandate to touch the properties which belongs to time barred year.
(6) That the order of learned Additional Commissioner is miserably barred by time.
(7) That the order of learned Additional Commissioner is hit by limitation as provided in subsection
(4) clause (b) of section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(8) That it is well recognized principle of the law of` imitation that once time begins to run from a specified dates it cannot he interrupted or extended unless the legislature makes express provision.
(9) That the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan case title as Nagina Silk v. Commissioner Income Tax 1936(sic) PTD 322 elaborately discussed this principal and declared the proceedings after amendment was illegal.
(10) That without considering the fact the Honourable apex court hold in number of judgments that Accountant member is not authorize to decide legal issue in single bench.
(11) The law does not empower the Assessing Officer to ignore the sale price in case of verifiable transaction unless it is proved to be sham or of collusive and corroborative nature to deprive exchequer of its lawful dues and taxes.
(12) That without considering the fact the Judgment of this Tribunal cited as 2013 PTD (Trib.) 1684, 2013 PTD (Trib.) 1159 is binding on single bench.
(13) That the order is fully rectifiable which will meet the end of justice."
4. Brief facts of the case are that return for tax year 2008 was filed declaring net income at Rs.1,05,200 and wealth statements showing total assets amounting to Rs .1,19 19, 265. The department obtained an information that the taxpayer had purchased a property worth Rs.20,15,000 which was not declared in the wealth statements., The taxpayer had also purchased a shop in Sargodha during the same period. The source of investment in the property was stated to be foreign remittances amounting to Rs.84,11,080 the Assessing Officer observed that the value of acquired property was Rs.1,05,75,600 which exceeded amount of foreign remittances at Rs.84,11,080.
After affording reasonable opportunity to the taxpayer the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue made an addition under section 111(d1)(b) amounting to Rs.21,64,520.
5. The learned A.R. During the proceeding before this Tribunal contended that the taxpayer had sufficient source in shape of foreign remittance for purchase of property. He has argued that the appellant provided foreign remittance certificate to Assessing Officer. He has further contended that the order of the learned Appeal Commissioner was hit by limitation as provided in subsection
(4) clause (b) of section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and it is well recognized principle of the law of limitation that once time begins to, run from a specified date it cannot be interrupted or extended unless the legislature makes express provision.
6. The learned. AR in support of his case has relied upon the case-law reported as 2013 PTD (Trib.)
1684 I.T.A. No.854/IB/2012 decided on 5-3-2013. The relevant portion is as under:- "Taxpayer had filed its return on 12-2-2007, which was taken to be assessment order issued to the taxpayer by the Commissioner on the day on which the return was furnished i.e. 12-2-2007, the reckoning period of 5 years, the Commissioner could amend the assessment order by 12-2-2012 whereas amended order had been passed by the Taxation Officer on 29-6-2012 which was hit by limitation and as such not sustainable in the eyes of law being passed beyond the period of limitation i.e. 5 years after passing the assessment order. First Appellate Authority had rightly annulled- the amended assessm ent order which called for no interference."
7. He also quoted the Supreme Court of Pakistan case in support of his case title as Nagina Silk v.
Commissioner Income Tax 1936(sic) PTD 322 in which discussed this principal and declared. He further quoted the C.P. No.925 of 2012 (on appeal against the judgment dated 14-3-2012 passed by the Islamabad High Court in STR No.1 of 2007)
8. Learned D.R. Asserted that.The order passed by the authorities below on the basis of factual position and argued that no documentary evidence regarding receipt of sale proceeds of the property as well as sale of gold was provided before the assessing officer. He further contended that the contention made by the appellant is not correct as he could not prove the same before this Tribunal. He has requested that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue and Appeal Commissioner, Sargodha may be maintained.
9. We have heard rival arguments of both parties and have perused the case record, judgments of Tribunal and Supreme Court of Pakistan. We feel that the crux of the matter is limitation which was not considered by both the authorities below. According to the case-laws quoted supra, the action of the Assessing Officer under section 111(1)(b) was barred by time. Therefore both the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the appeal of the taxpayer succeeds.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.