DR. SHAHID SIDDIQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. These departmental appeals arise from orders of learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)s dated 27.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 adjudicating appeals against orders passed under section 171 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ["The Ordinance"] as detailed below:- S. No.ITA No. Assessment / Tax yearDate of order of Commissioner Inland Revenue(A)Date of order under. section 17(1)
1. 2786/LB/2014 1998-99 -do- -do-
2. 2787/LB/2014 1999-00 -do- -do-
3. 2788/LB/2014 2001-02 -do- -do-
4. 2794/LB/2014 2000-01 -do- -do-
5. 2789/LB/2G14 2002-03 -do- -do-
6. 2790/LB/2014 2003 -do- -do-
7. 279I/LB/2014 2004 -do- -do-
8. 2792/LB/2014 2006 -do- -do-
9. 2793/LB/2014 1999-00 27.10.2014 15.05.2014
10. 2795/LB/2014 2005 -do- -do-
11. 2796/LB/2014 2006 -do- -do-
12. 2797/LB/2014 2007 -do- -do-
13. 2798/LB/2014 2009 -do- -do-
14. 2799/LB/2014 2010 -do- 29.04.2014
15. 2786/LB/2014 1998-99 -do- -do-
2. There is following common ground in all these appeals: That the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was not justified to remand back the proceedings in view of section 129(2)a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as powers to remand back stand already withdrawn.
Apart from above, following ground has also been taken in ITAs Nos.2785 to 2787 and 2794/LB/2014: That the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was not justified by ignoring the fact that the issue of compensation stands finalized after issuance of compensation order and subsequent no objection raised by the taxpayer company at any form.
3. Departmental representative contested orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of grounds taken in appeal whereas learned AR of the taxpayer supported the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
4. As regards first common ground, these departmental appeals have been filed against two orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 adjudicating compensation orders under section 171(1) of the Ordinance. In the later order dated 28.10.2014, learned Commissioner has referred his earlier order dated 27.10.2014. In his order dated 27.10.2014 grounds relating to incorrect rate and incorrect period of compensation were adjudicated, On the issue of incorrect rate, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after elaborating order of this learned Tribunal reported as (2013 PTD (Trib.) 246) remanded the case with the direction to follow this judgement. On the issue of incorrect period, learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed to calculate period of compensation in accordance with the provisions of clause 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897.
In the latter order dated 28.10.2014, since these issues were also involved, learned Commissioner (Appeals), for the sake of consistency, directed to redress the grievance in the light of his earlier order dated 27.10.2014.
5. So far as second common ground is concerned, the Additional Commissioner rejected the compensation on the ground that an order under section 171 of the Ordinance relating to assessm ent years 1997-98 to 2000-01 had already been passed dated 31.03.2004 and bank neither filed any rectification application nor filed any appeal. In appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent bank contended that present claim of compensation was different from the claim basis of which order dated 31.03.2004 was passed. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case on this issue to examine this aspect.
6. It is clear from above that learned Commissioner (Appeals) adjudicated the issues in his orders dated 27.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 with clear directions and not remanded the case back just for de novo consideration. Departmental appeals therefore merit rejection.
7. The instant appeals stand disposed of in the manner and to the extent as discussed above.