FAKHAR-UD-DIN SIDDIQUI, J.M.--1. These further cross appeals are brought against the impugned order, dated 23rd July, 1988 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Lahore pertaining to the assessm ent year 1987-88 on the following grounds:--
(i) That the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), Zone-I, Lahore vide his order, dated 23rd July, 1988 is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
(ii) That the learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified to fix the G.P. Rate to 35% as against declared and adopted rate of 36.33%.
(iii) That the appellant may kindly be allowed to alter or to submit additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
The assessee also challenged the impugned final order on the grounds of addbacks and G.P. Rate.
2. Mr. Munir Ahmad Sheikh, Departmental Representative appeared but he had no record with him.
He said that inspite of the fact that notice was served on the Department no material has been provided to him. Mr. Zia H. Rizvi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent/assessee. The learned counsel stated that assessee's appeal regarding same year is also pending adjudication.
Both appeals are decided accordingly.
3. The inspection of record of the Departmental appeal before me revealed that certified copy of the impugned order under reference, as required by Rule 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 has not been filed with the result that the appeal is incompetent and cannot be admitted, therefore, I refuse to admit the appeal.
4. As regards assessee's appeal a certified copy of the impugned order is on record. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee mainly contended that the addbacks made and confirmed by the learned Authority below were wrong in first appeal. I am also amazed to leam from the assessm ent order that the addbacks made by the Income-tax Officer were mainly without any reason. To say simply that for unverifiable and unvouchedness of certain facts does not empower the assessing officer to addback certain amounts in profit and loss accounts. This type of monarchy is not recognised in law. All the addbacks made and confirmed in first appeal are against law and unjustified, I, therefore, allow them.
5. As a result, the Departmental appeal fails and the assessee's appeal succeeds to the extent and manner explained above.