MRS. AMBREEN ASLAM, (JUDICIAL MEMBER):---Through this order, we intend to dispose of this appeal filed by the appellant/ taxpayer against the Order No,17/A-I, dated 30-12-2013 (Tax year 2008), passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), Karachi on the following grounds: i. The order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals I), CIR (A) is bad in law and on facts of the case. ii. The CIR(A) has erred in maintaining the action of the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue
[ACIR] in calculating depletion allowance at Rs,1,742,897,457 being 15 per cent of Rs,11,619,316,380 instead of Rs,2,210,616,866 being 15 per cent of Rs,14,737,455,770. iii. The appellant seeks consequential relief in the liability of Worker's Welfare Fund. iv. Your appellant craves leaves to add to amend or alter the above grounds of appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the taxpayer is a non-resident company incorporated in the United State of America and is engaged in exploration and production of petroleum. The return of income tax year 2008 was filed by the taxpayer declaring total income under normal law at Rs,3,583,381,000 which was treated as an assessment order deemed to have been issued in terms of section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The assessment was finalized under section 122(I) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 at total income of Rs,5,391,197,876 and tax payable at Rs,841,732,879. Later, amended assessment order was rectified under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, vide DC No,6/17, dated 10-10-2009 and No,7/17 dated 26-10-2009. As a result of these rectification, revised total income was determined at Rs,5,391,066,998 and tax payable was determined at Rs,415,424,535. The taxpayer company vide rectification application bearing No,DT3626, dated 11-6-2009 pointed out some mistakes. The DCIR recited the said mistakes by passing Order bearing DC No,3/113, dated 21-6-2010 under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by ACIR, the taxpayer preferred appeal before learned CIR(A) who decided the appeal of the taxpayer vide Order No,170-A/1, dated 30-10- 2013 on the following observations: "Ground No,2 The AR of appellant has agitated on the addition made on account of depletion allowance. This issue has been settled by the Honourable Large Bench of Appellate Tribunal in their order dated 13-6-2011 and also confirmed by the full bench of leaned Tribunal in I. T.As. Nos, 622/1B/03 and 253/1B/07 for. assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively dated 25-10-2009 in the case of Prico Gas Company in favour of the tax department. Respectfully following the decision of the Honourable Tribunal the ground of appeal is rejected and the order of the officer is confirmed.
Ground No,3 The officer is directed to allow the consequential relief on the levy of WWP at the outcqme of this appellate order if any."
4. Again aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order No,17/A-1, dated 30-10-2013, passed by learned CIR(A), the -taxpayer preferred instant appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Mr. Qadeer Ahmed, FCA, attended the proceedings on behalf of the appellant/taxpayer while Mr. Abdul Salam Khan, attended on behalf of respondent/department.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of both sides, perused the record including impugned order and have gone through the case laws relied upon by learned representatives of both sides and the grounds containing in the appeal. To decide the instant appeal the question before us whether the impugned order requires interference?
7. The main grouse of the appellant/taxpayer is that the CIR(A) has erred in maintaining the action of the ACIR in calculating depletion allowance at Rs,1,742,897,457 being 15 per cent of Rs,11,619,316.380 instead of Rs,2,210,616,866 being 15 per cent of Rs,14,737,445.770. The appellant/taxpayer also seeks consequential relief in the liability of Worker's Welfare Fund.
8. On the other hand, the learned DR fully opposed the arguments advanced by the learned AR. The learned DR also supported the findings of the learned CIR(A) on the issues as discussed in the grounds of this appeal. The learned DR prayed this bench for dismissal of this appeal of the taxpayer.
9. So far the issue regarding the rate of depletion allowance are concerned these issues have already been decided by the learned Large Bench in the judgment of I.T.As. Nos,433 to 436 (IB)/2008, M/s. MND Exploration and Production Limited v. CIRR LTU Islamabad, M . A .
(A.G.)/137(IB)/09, I.T.A. No,137(IB)/2008 (MND Exploration and Production Ltd., v. CIR LTU, Islamabad), I.T.As. Nos,311 and 312 (IB)/2007 (CIR, LTU, Islamabad v. Messrs OMV Pakistan Exploration (Pvt.) Ltd.)
I.T.As. Nos, 440 to 443 (IB)/2008 (Messrs BHP Petroleum Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamabad v. CIR LTU, Islamabad), ITA No,545(KB)/2006, ITA No,297(KB)/2007, ITA No,298(KB)/2007, ITA No,115(KB)/2007, ITA No,116(KB)/2007, ITA No,117(KB)/2007, ITA No,1944(KB)/2007, (M/s. Occidental Petroleum Pakistan, Karachi v. CIR, LTU, Karachi), ITAs. Nos,1305 to 1309(KB)/2006 (M/s. P.F.P., Kandanwari 2 Ltd., Karachi v. CIR, LTU, Karachi) I--A No,18(KB)/2011 (Messrs P.K.P. Exploration 2 Ltd., Karachi v. CIR, LTU, Karachi), ITA No,1086(KB)/2005 (Messrs Kuffee Pakistan B.V., Karachi v. CIR LTU, Karachi), and ITA No,19(KB)/2011 (M/s. Kufee Pakistan B.V., Karachi) against the taxpayer.
10.So far as the ground regarding not allowing of tax credit of workers welfare fund is concerned in that context the learned CIR (A) already issued directions to the officer for allowing of such relief after verification so in view of above position we are of the view that the taxpayer already granted consequential relief in shape of above directions.
11.So in view of above position and very respectively following dictum mentioned supra on these issues appeal in hand is rejected.
12.The appeal is disposed off in the manner as indicated above.