SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMA N.---This application has been filed at the instance of taxpayer , whereby the impugned order bearing ITA No.798/1 13/2016 dated 25.04.2017 passed by this Tribunal has been requested to be rectified under Section-221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 due to factual mistakes apparent from the record on the following grounds: - "1. That the honorable Appellate Tribunal passed the Order dated 25.04.2017 on the appeal of the applicant for the Tax Year-2012 wherein there are mistakes and non-reading of the facts which are liable to be rectified under Section 221 of Income T ax Ordinance, 2001.
2. That the order of the Honorable Appellate Tribunal did not address the issues which were raised in the appeal and during arguments therefore the order of this Honorable Appellate T ribunal requires to be recall.
3. That the impugned order -in-appeal passed by Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad is against the Law and Facts of the case.
4. That the Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad as well as Honorable Commissioner Appeals totally ignored the facts regarding the local purchases.
5. That in the order dated 25.04.2017 of the Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and CIR (Appeals-II) was legally required to quas h the whole impugned order framed under sections 161/205 by Deputy Commissioner (IR) instead of allowing partial relief of tax on the payments of Salaries / Wages and to confirm the tax charged on the total payments made against purchases of material as the referred tax was being levied on assumption basis without provided any definite information.
6. That the Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and CIR (Appeals-II) was not justified in maintaining the order framed under sections 161 / 205 of the Deputy Commissioner (IR) as the assessing officer passed the impugned order without considering the documentary evidences submitted in respect of payments on account of purchases of Material, Salary / Wages paid to staff and passed the impugned order without considering the evidence provided by the taxpayer , hence the order is not maintainable in eye of law .
7. That the taxpayer file details in respec t of purchases and BTL payments before the assessing officer as well as before the CIR (Appeals-II) but the evidence and stance taken by the taxpayer was not considered and stereo type order was produced.
8. That all the ground taken before the Assessing Officer , the CIR (Appeals-II) and Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad are the integral part of instant rectification application, these grounds are not reproduced to maintain the brevity and to save the precious time of the Honorable Court.
9. That the detailed evidence on account of local purchases of Rs.22,296,18 3/- for the Month July, 2011 to June, 2012 which consist of 1112 receipts. These receipts are arranged month wise and numbered to facilitate adjudication of matter for meeting natural justice. These receipt are annexed with rectification application as ready reference of evidence.
10. That the appellant request for the permission to add or delete any ground of the appeal at the time of hearing."
2. The learned AR of the taxpayer has contended that this Tribunal is the final facts finding authority but in this case the true facts of the case had not been appreciated. It is submitted that the appellant / applicant in this case has provided all the details of the purchases and BTL Payments before the Taxation Officer, the learned CIR(A) and before this Tribunal which fact has wrongly been mentioned not to be produced. The detail has also been produced by the learned Counsel before the Bench with request to consider the same. The learned AR regarding the Scope of rectification under section 221 of the Ordinance has referred the judgement of Hon'ble Balochistan High Court, Quetta reported as 2017 PTD 2227 wherein it is 1 1 held that: - "----Rectification was the correction of something that was wrong, or to correct by removing of an error; and was a process by which something wrongly entered in or omitted from a record or any document was corrected so as to express the true intention of the recorder or author , which was not expressed in the original version."
The taxpayer's counsel argued that rectification is a process by which something wrongly entered in or omitted from a record or any document, is corrected so as to express the true intention of the recorder or author , which was not expressed in the original version as held in the above binding Judgement. The counsel of the Taxpayer further submitted that question before the Tribunal is a question of fact and for that also an affidavit under Rule 13 of the Tribunal's Rule, 2010 has been filed. It is reiterated that the issue to be rectified was specifically mentioned in the grounds of application/appeal and the taxpayer has submitted the complete record of local purchases for the Month of July, 2011 to December , 2011 and January , 2012 to June, 2012 along with two Affidavits. The summary of the local purchase for the period 2011-2012 consist of one page, for total amount Rs. 22,296,183; the month's wise local purchases along with description of stores is consist of 45 pages and local purchase invoices consist of 1112.
The above detail has been submitted along with Affidavits, the Affidavit-1, is reproduced as under: "....1, Mr. Mubesher Ahmad Proprietor M/s Wular Engineering having its corp orate office at #401, Floor , 87- E Azeem Mansion Fazal-e-Haq Road Blue Area Islamabad. I state on oath that we have provided all the record of local purchases and BTL along with invoices in support of our plea for the years 2011-2012 to assessing officer (Inland Revenue) Enforcement and Audit Unit, Regional Tax Office, Islamabad and CIR (Appeal-II).
Both authorities not view and consider the factual evidence. The same is annexed with this affidavit for ready reference.
It is further submitted on oath that nothing have concealed to avoid taxes etc..."
" The Affidavit-2, reproduced as under: it is submitted on oath that the list of the summary of local purchases monthswise is genuine and original in all respect, nothing have concealed avoiding tax etc..."
The learned AR referred another reported case of this Tribunal cited as 1990 PTD (Trib.) 1042. The relevant para produced as: - ".. (d) Affidavit--Requirements---When an affidavit was filed on direction of a Court or under Some provision of law it was to be treated as a piece of evidence---Such affidavit should consist, like other types of evidence, of either those facts which were within personal knowledge of the deponent or those facts which had come to his knowledge on information received from someone or some record---Affidavit, therefore, must specifically mention what deponent was swearing out of his personal knowledge and what he was deposing on information received from some source---Principles contained in O. XIX, C.P.C. would be applicable in respect of affidavit---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIX.
An affidavit is treated as piece of evidence if it is filed on direction of a Court or under some provisions of law. Since it is a piece of evidence, therefore, it should consist, like all other types of evidence , of either those facts which are within personal knowledge of the deponent or those facts which have come to his knowledge on information received from someone or some record . An affidavit, therefore, must specifical ly mention what a deponent is swearing out of his personal knowledge and what he is deposing on information received from some source.
Moreover , an affidavit is a statement made on oath and if a person does not believe in Allah on solemn affirmation.
Thus, these universally accepted general principles regarding an affidavit have been incorporated in Order XIX of Civil Procedure Code and even if it is held, that Civil Procedure Code does not apply in terms to the proceedings before the Tribunal, yet as the principles of equity , of justice and good conscience, Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) could be applied. Thus, the decisions of Civil Courts regarding an affidavit are applicable with full force in proceedings before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Where an affidavit is based on personal knowledge and belief the grounds for it should be disclo sed. Similarly where the affidavit is based on information received, the source of such information should also be disclosed and if an affidavit is based partly on personal knowledge and partly on information, the affidavit should specify the particulars which are based on the personal knowledge and which on information received. Moreover , such affidavits are to be necessarily verified on the basis of such information or personal knowledge and should also be properly sworn before an officer authorised to administer oath... "
The Counsel of the taxpayer / applicant argued that the rejection of local purchases after submission of Affidavit along with the complete record of local purchases is illegal / unlawful and cannot be rejected without rebuttal of each transaction separately . He has, therefore, requested that as the mistake in the Order of this Tribunal dated 25.04.2017 is apparent and floating over the record which may please be rectified.
3. The learned DR on the other side is opposing the application and has contended that there is no mistake in the order and application for rectification is liable to be rejected.
4. We have heard the learned representative of the parties, perused the order of this Tribunal dated 25.04.2017, the impugned orders of the officers below , the case law referred by the learned AR and relevant record produced before us. The issue is with reference to the action of assessing officer regarding payments on account of local purchases which as per Taxation Officer, the taxpayer failed to file details / documents I evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIR(A) has also in this order has mentioned that the detail has not been furnished but as per the applicant/appellant complete detail of the local purchases were produced before both the authorities below . The affidavit in this regard with complete detail as mentioned in the above paras has been submitted by the applicant/appellant. As for as issue of rectification is concerned, it has been settled that a mistake of fact as well as law can be rectified to resolve the disputed issue provided the rectification sought is within the period of limitation. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3866 , (ii) 1998 PTD 3488 , (iii)
1971 PTD 411 (Allahabad H.C.), (iv) 1983 PTD 246, (v) 1988 PTD 3748 (Trib.), and (vi) 1983 PTD 221. During the course of arguments, the applicant has placed before us the detail of Local Purchases which have been over sighted during the course of hearing of main appeal. After considering the same, we are of the view that once the Tax Payer has submitted the details of Local Purchases, the Officer has no authority to reject the same without confronting the same which fact has also not been considered by the learned CIR(A) as well as by this Tribunal inadvertently . We are, therefore, of the view that the Revenue authority should have to be conscious of the fact that the Tax payer has to be given full respect and not to be humiliated as there are only few who file the return of income tax. If the filers are not encouraged there cannot be any incentive for the others and the network of the Tax cannot be increased. After considering the arguments and relevant record we are of the view that this Tribunal has upheld the impugned order of the officers below on the issue of local purchases and BTL inadvertently without considering the fact that the detail in this regard was submitted and is available on record and has not been considered, which is a mistake apparent from the record liable to be rectified.
The order dated 25.04.2017 is, therefor e, rectified to the extent of issue of purchases and BTL. This issue is remanded back to the Taxation Officer with the direction to pass fresh order on this issue affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant/appellant Tax Payer and perusal of the record in this respect which the applicant is directed to produce the same again before the Taxation Officer. Taxation Officer is also directed to conclude the matter within 30 days of the receipt of this order . The above mistake is deemed to be Part of the Order dated 25.04.2017.
Application is allowed to the extent and in the manner referred above.