MUHAMMAD SARD MEHMOOD SETHI, J. Through this Reference Application under Section 133 of the Income Tax, Ordinance, 2001 ("the Ordinance of 2001") ; following question of law, arising out of impugned order dated 16.10.2018, passed by learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Headquarters), Islamabad ("Appellate Tribunal "), has been pressed and argued for our opinion:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned ATIR was justified to Cancel the amended assessment u/S. 122(1)/122(5) read with Section 111(1)(d) of the Income, Tax Ordinance, 2001 when the law fully empowers the Officer of Inland Revenue to make such amended assessment on account of concealed/suppressed sales?".
2. Brief facts of the case are that original deemed assessment in this case was amended u/S. 122(1)/122(5) of the Ordinance of 2001, whereby taxable income for the year 2013 was re-computed at Rs. 233,321,677/- and tax payable was calculated at Rs. 57,944,028/-. Being aggrieved, respondent-taxpayer preferred appeal before CIR (Appeals), Lahore, which was rejected. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent-taxpayer filed second appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed. Hence this Reference Application.
3. Learned counsel for applicant department was confronted with the operative part of impugned order that findings given therein are of facts. He could not rebut that findings are not of law .
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that respondent-taxpayer explained his source of investment, which is in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order . The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "5.....
It was contended by the appellant as discussed in the amended order that the real brother and partner of the AoP Mr. Shahzad Anwar Gill was died on 01.04.2012. The bank official informed that the bank loan will be rescheduled in order to exclude the deceased partner . Appellant borrowed the money from their close friends and deposited in the said account and after closing the old account new account No. 000310-1 was opened and the personal amounts were disbursed accordingly ."
6. Learned Appellate Tribunal, after comparing the above explanation with the available record, gave findings of facts that inflated/projected figures for obtaining bank loans cannot be considered as definite information. The relevant observations are as below:-- "5...
We have further noted that the learned CIR(A) has mentioned case of CIT v. Haji Moula Bukhsh which was decided under Section 4 of the old Incom e Tax Act, 1922 while the law has been changed and now as per Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the undisclosed/unexplained investment related to previous years may deemed to be income in that financial year in which it is related to but as per Section 4 of the old Act 1922, the investment related to previous years deemed to be income in the year in which it is established. That is why the price of purchases made in previous years cannot be deducted and deemed income in current assessment year . .........
After careful perusal of the above-referred case-law we are of the view that assess ing officer in this case has made the addition amending the deemed assessment on the basis of inflated or projected figures submitted to the Bank for obtaining loans which could not be considered as definite information as envisaged under the law and has amended the assessment which is liable to be cancelled keeping in view the case-law discussed above and the learned CIR(A) has also upheld the same without considering the facts of the case and the relevant laws as explained by the Superior Courts and by this Tribunal. Impugned orders of the officers below are, therefore, cancelled."
7. When confronted with above, it has not been shown to us that impugned findings are perverse, contrary to record or suffer from any other legal infirmity or impropriety warranting interferenc e in reference jurisdiction. This Court has to decide Reference Application in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, on facts and circumstances founded by the Appellate Tribunal, which is the last fact finding forum. High Court cannot change findings of facts arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Messrs F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. v.
Deputy Commissioner Income T ax (2014 SCMR 907 ).
8. Since the decision by learned Appellate Tribunal is based on findings of facts, therefore, we decline to exercise advisory jurisdiction.
This Reference Application, alongwith connected reference application, is decided against applicant department.
9. Office shall send a copy of this order under seal of the Court to learned Appellate Tribunal as per Section 133(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.