NASIM SIKANDAR, J.-This further appear under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (since substituted) assails an order recorded by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20.1.1997. Following questions of law are claimed to have arisen out of the said order:-
(i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the order u/S. 66-A being erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the assessee committee me act of concealment by not disclosing the expenses actually incurred.
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the order u/S. 66-A despite the fact that there was an assessment order u/S. 62(1) on the order sheet and the I.T. 30, dated 18.10.1992.
2. The respondent is an individual whose original assessment completed under Self-Assessment Scheme was subsequently revised under Section 66-A on the ground that he had inflated expenses by a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned Tribunal while recording their order on 20.1.1997 found it as a fact that computation of income given by the assessee along with return did not contain any element of evasion of tax.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue at pre-admission stage, we find that neither the aforesaid question arises out of the order of the Tribunal nor this appeal is otherwise competent under the amended provisions of Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance brought on the statute book on 1.7.1997. It will be seen that after the aforesaid judgment of Tribunal, the revenue made an application for Reference of the following question to this Court:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is justified in annulling the order u/S. 66-A, being erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the assessee committed the act of concealment by not disclosing the expenses actually incurred."
The application so made was rejected by the Tribunal on 3.10.1997. Thereafter instead of approaching this Court under the substituted provisions of Section 136(2), the Revenue opted to file this appeal under the amended provisions of the Ordinance. This was clearly illegal. The order of the Tribunal having been recorded on 20.1.1997 much earlier to the introduction of the amended provisions of Section 136 on 1.7.1997 providing for an appeal to this Court, the revenue could not have avail them. Particularly in view of the fact that they first filed an application for a Reference to this Court and after having failed, they approached this Court under the substituted provisions, It will further be seen that this appeal filed on 29.12.1997 was clearly barred by limitation under the amended provisions. An appeal under the amended provision jo this Court laid only within a period of 60 days from the date on which an assessee was served with an order recorded under Section 135 of the Ordinance, In this case that order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.1.1997 while this appeal was filed on 29.12.1999.
4. Even on facts we find that in the presence of a finding of the Tribunal that no concealment by the assessee has been made, none of the aforesaid questions can be said to have raised a legal controversy.
Appeal dismissed in limine.