1. SARDAR LIAQA T HUSSAIN, CHAIRPE RSON.---- This appeal has been filed by the Bank of Punjab, Mirpur (Appellant hereinafter) against the order (appellate order hereinafter) of the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) Mirpur CIR (A) hereinafter] bearing No. TAX/CIR (A) / 188-90/2014 dated 31.10.2014, whereby , the learned CIR (A) confirmed the amended assessment order of Deputy Commiss ioner Inland Revenue Circle-02 (Companies) Mirpur (Assessing Officer hereinafter) issued under subsection (1), of section 122 read with subsection (5) of section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (IT O, 2001 hereinafter).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed its return for the tax year 2006 on 30.09.2006, declaring taxable income at Rs.1,638,204/-. Assessing Officer scrutinized the return and issued notice under subsection (9) of section 122 read with subsection (5) of section 122 of the ITO, 2001 to the appellant 25.06.2012. The appellant furnished reply on 30.06.2012, Assessing officer passed the amended assessment order 30.06.2012, by increasing the taxable income of the appellant to the tune of Rs.24,544,064/-. Feeling dissatisfied by the amended assessment order , the appellant filed an appeal before the learned CIR (A), who after hearing both the parties confirmed the amended assessment order . The appellant feeling dissatisfied by the appellate order has filed the instant appeal, mainly on the ground that amended assessment order is adversely hit by the time limitation as prescribed by law , without definite information and documentary evidence and on the basis of whims and surmises.
3. Statutory notices issued to the rival parties. Mr. Mansoor Baig, Advocate High Court appeared on behalf of appellant (A.R hereinafter) and Basil Siddique, Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue appeared on behalf of Department as departmental representative (D.R hereinafter).
4. A.R argued that the amended assessmen t order is hit by the time limitation as provided in subsection (2) of section 122 to the ITO 2001. A.R explained that amended assessment order was passed on 30.06.2012, whereas the time limitation for making amendment in the deemed assessment had already expired on 30.09.201 1. A.R argued. that subsection (2) of section 122 of ITO, 2001 was amended through Finance Act, 2009, same being substantive piece of legislation is applicable prospectively . A.R argued that the time limitation issue is a legal issue and it is a settled principle of law that law point can be-agitated at any of the legal fora (s). A.R. cited case laws 2018 SCMR 991 and Judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No. 1306 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014 to strengthen his arguments. AR argued that arbitrary earning rate of income from "local advance" was applied Without definite information record. A.R argued that "loca l advances" are extended to the local parties and rate of interest varies party to parties owing to business considerations and nature of advance. A.R argued that application of KIBOR plus 3% lending rate is not applicable to "local advances". AR choose to press the contentions in respect of mark-up earned on "surplus funds transferred to head office" rather conceded to the finding of learned CR (A) in this regard.
5. A.R pleaded for the acceptance of appeal as per above assertions.
6. D.R controverted the arguments placed by the A.R. D.R asserted that order , as well as, appellate Order both are lawful and A.R has not pointed out any legal infirmity based upon facts/merits of the case. D.R argued that issue of limitation was not raised before the assessing officer neither before CIR(A); rather the notices issued were complied and thus principle of estoppel applies here. D.R maintained that mere technicalities are insuf ficient to prove the illegality of an order . D.R argued that subsection (2) of section 122 to the ITO, 2001 is procedural in nature and at the time of making amend ed assessment order the time limitation to make such amendment was available, i.e till 30th of June, 2012, when the amended assessment order was passed. D.R argued that the impugned order is a detailed order . D.R vehemently , repeated his arguments that issues not raised before the lower appellate forums are not entertainable before the Tribunal. AR pleaded for the rejection of appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the rival parties at length, gone through the order (s) of the below forums and the law.
8. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant has filed the Income Tax Return for the tax year 2006 on 30.09.2006. This Income tax Return became a deemed assessment order in terms of provisions contained in section 120 of the ITO, 2001. Assessing Officer issued 'show-eye on 25.06.2012 to amend the deemed assessment order . The issue of limitation before us is of legal nature and it can be raised at any stage as per ratio settled in the case law 2000 PTD 539. It is a settled principal of law that relevant law apply for the relevant period unless provided otherwise. The relevant provision of subsection (2) of section 122 to the ITO, 2001 is reproduced hereunder; Section 122:-
(1) .....
(2) an assessment order shall only apply be amended under sub-section (1) within five years after the Commissioner had issued or is treated as having issued the assessment order on the tax payer .
(3) ....
(4) .... : : : : : :
(9) ....
9. Through Finance Act, 2009, which is applicable from 01.07.2009 an amendment was introduced. The same provides as under; Section 122:-
(1) .....
(2) No order under subsection (1) shall be amended by the Commissioner after the expiry of five years from the end of financial year in which the Commissioner has issued or treated to have issued the assessment order to the taxpayer .
(3) .....
(4) ..... : : : : : :
(9) .....
10. We have also perused the case laws referred by the A.R and examined the short point involved in the matter . The Commissioner was empowered to amend the deemed assessment within five year after the Commissioner had issued or is treated as having issued the assessment order on the taxpayer . In the instant case the deemed assessment order i.e. date of filing of return is 30.09.2006 and thus the Commissioner was empowered to amend the same latest by 29.09.201 1, whereas, the amended assessment order was passed on 30.06.2012. The show- cause notice was also issued on 25.06.2012 when the deemed assessment order has attained finality and the valuable right of the appellant had accrued.It is a settled principal of law that vested right cannot be snatched through procedural law. The issue of time limitation legal one and can be conteste d at any fora. Assessing Officer amended deemed assessment on 30.06.2012 after nine (09) months, beyond the time limitation allowed in the law .
11. As the amended assessment order barred by time, therefore it is needless to address the meritorious grounds.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the amended order is adversely hit by the doctrine of time limitation. The order (s) of both the below are quashed with no cost to the parties. Registrar is directed to communicate the judgment to the parties.
13. File be consigned to the record room after due completion.