ORDER ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.- The Department has come up in appeal against the order of the AAG of Income Tax, Range-E, Lahore, dated 1.10.1987. As per the grounds of appeal the department is aggrieved on account of the followings
(1) "That the annulment of the assessment by the learned AAC is illegal and unjustified as the assessm ent had rightly been framed on 28.6.87 as is evident from the D. C.R. Entry No. 3358, dated 28.6.86. Further the Demand Notice was also served on 30.6.87.
(2) That the partly set aside assessme nt had already been contested in appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide ITO's letter No. 377/02, dated 12.2.1987. In view of this aspect it was not hit by limitation. Under section 66(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The limitation for assessm ent is still available.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed appeal before the AAC where at the time of the hearing the assessing officer stated that the appeal is time-barred as the notice was served on 30.6.1987 and the appeal was filed on 3.8.1987. The learned counsel, on the other hand, stated before the AAC that the demand notice was served on 13.8.1987. There- after the AAC scrutinized the demand notice available on record and found that it only bore the signatures of the notice server. As such, the AAC held the appeal to be within time. The basic case of the assessee before the AAC was that the assessme nt order under section 66 was barred by time. The AAC has stated in his order that the original assessment in this case was set aside by the then AAC and as per ITO's record he received the AAC's order on 27.11.1985. The date of order typed and incorporated in the assessm ent order is 7.7.1987. According to the AAC the to had not maintained any proper order-sheet for the year under consideration and, therefore, from the record available with him it was not clear whether any order sheet was made or not for any date relevant to the year under appeal. The AAC further found that the to had proceeded ex parte stating the date of default.
Furthermore, the IT-30 did not have any date. The to was confronted with these facts who requested the AAG to consult the D.C.R. To find out the date of assessment order. The AAC rejected the request of the to on the ground that the D.C.R. Is a part of office record and is not directly relevant to the present issue. The assessment order was accordingly annulled.
3. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties. The learned counsel for the assessee has supported the order of the AAC. The learned D.R. Stated that the AAC had annulled the assessm ent order without appreciating the true facts of the case. In this regard he was asked by us to produce all the relevant record along with the D.C.R. So that we may be in a position to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the facts of the present case. On the date of next hearing ie.31.8.1995 the learned D. B.Failed to produce the record. He was accorded another opportunity to produce the relevant record on 17:10.1995 but no record was produced. Even today the D.R. Has appealed without any record. In these circumstances, we are not left with no alternative but to hold that department is disinterested in perusing its appeal and we reject it accordingly.