ORDER MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER.- Through this appeal the assessee has questioned the correctness of the order dated 08.12.1991 rendered by the then CIT(A) Zone-Ill, Lahore. In the first instance the I.T.O. Companies-21 Lahore had formulated assessment in this case vide his order dated 26.2.1991. The relevant assessm ent year is 1990-91. The assessee/appellant in this case is a Private Limited Company which has been deriving income from mining and sale of coal at it mines at Khushab.
2. The brief facts of the matter are that the declared version of the assessee regarding the sales etc., has been rejected at both the forums below. Sales were accordingly estimated. Various add backs were also made out of expenses claimed in P&L account.
3. The assessee had filed first appeal in which partial relief has since been allowed to him by the CIT(A).
4. Still dis-satisfied, the assessee has come up in second appeal in which it has been alleged that the CIT(A) was wrong in confirming add backs out of P&L expenses under head free Atta for labour, entertainment, water supply and he has further fell to error in not deleting the entire addition of Rs.
130,819/- out of truck repair expenses of Rs. 190,818/-. The plea is that the entire claim of expenses under this head is of revenue nature and nothing of it is of capital nature and thus the entire expenses being of revenue nature should have been allowed: Earlier it was held by the I.T.O, that as per the decision rendered in the previous year expenses could not allowed to the assessee under the head free Atta for labour. Regarding the repair of truck it was found by the I.T.O, that as in the previous year the expenses claimed were of capital nature and could not be charged to P&L account. However, as against the claimed expenses the I.T.O, allowed expenses to the assessee only to be extent of Rs. 60,000/- as revenue expenditure and the remaining expense of Rs. 1,30,818/- was capitalized.
5. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the orders passed in this case by the departmental officer.
6. At the outset learned A.R. Of the assessee has placed before us a photocopy of the order dated 16.3.1992 delivered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore in the appeals filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1988-89 and 1991-92 bearing Income Tax Appeals No. 584 and 32 of 1989-90 and 1991-92 respectively. The perusal of this order shows that both the points now at issue before us were also the subject-matter of the afore-mentioned two appeals decided by the Tribunal in the two previous years than the one which is under review in the appeal in hand.
7. In the light of the decision of the Tribunal it has been submitted by the learned A.R. Of the assessee that as regards the head free Atta for labour, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside for the redetermination. This prayer has been resisted by the learned D.R. In these circumstances the assessm ent under review is set aside to the extent of the point free Atta for redetermination by the assessing officer, as per the same directions which were given by the Tribunal in its order dated 16.3.1992.
8. Regarding the truck repair account we do not find by before in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee and find that treatment which has been accorded to the assessee by the CIT(A) does not call for any interference as the same is also in line with the findings of the Tribunal on the point as rendered in the order dated 16.3.1992 ibid, pertaining to the two previous years. The order passed by the CIT(A) in this regard is, therefore, confirmed.
9. No other point is involved in this case for our determination.
10. On account of what has been said above, the appeal filed by the assessee stands determined in the terms as stated above.