This Reference Application under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance") has been filed by the Applicant, being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 878/LB/2018 (Tax Year 2011) and I.T.A. No. 2815/LB/2014 (Tax Year 2011) dated 17.07.2018 (the "impugned order "). Following questions of law are pressed for our opinion in instant Reference, which are asserted to have arisen out of impugned order:- QUESTIONS OF LA W I) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has not erred in law to ignore its earlier judgment reported as 2012 PTD 547
(Trib) wherein it has been categorically held that the annulment does not debar the department to proceed afresh as per provisions of law?
II) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has not erred in law by not appreciating that the general remarks of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that officer may examine the record/documents for correct appraisal of the case and to proceed according to law after providing proper opportunity of hearing were not the directions which could influence the of ficer while proceeding in the light of judgment reported as 2012 PTD 547 (Trib)? ".
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder: "Perusal of impugned order reveals that the CIR (A) annulled the order of the assessing officer after holding that deemed order was amended by passing ex-parte order under Section 121 in violation of Board's Circular C.No. 7(2)/DT -14/94 dated 01.02.1994. He further held that huge addition under Section 111(1) (b) has been made on account of closing stock declared at Rs. 17,947,965/- as against capital shown as 'Nil' in the return. He further observed that the appellant availed credit limit of Rs. 31(M) and paid markup at Rs. 388,004/- and at Rs. 421,990/- on it during the year. However , while amending the deemed assessment the assessing officer allowed these financial charges against credit limit but failed to correlate it with the declared closing stock. Hence, the addition is held unjustified. Considering the findings recorded above we are of the opinion that the CIR (A) has erred in law to direct the assessing of ficer to examine record/documents for correct appraisal".
3. We agree with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal and see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity as the same has been passed after scrutinizing the relevant record as well as on the basis of sound reasoning.
4. Therefore, the Reference application is decided against the Applicant.
5. Office shall send a copy of this order under seal of the Court to the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 133(5) of the Ordinance.