NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question has been framed for our consideration and answer:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified to annul the reassessm ent made under section 66 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, when the law was different and the original assessm ent made on the issuance of notice under section 56 was declared as barred by time and was annulled by the CIT(A)?"
2. According to the statement of the case, the assessee respondent is a Corporate Body established under Small Industries Corporation Act, 1973. It was served with a notice under section 56 of the Ordinance to file a return for the assessment year 1980-81. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the claimed exemption from levy of income-tax proceeded to compute its income for the year at Rs.1,80,18,075 through an assessment order recorded on 23-5-1985. On appeal the assessm ent so framed was annulled on the ground that it was barred by limitation as laid down in section 64 of the Income Tax Ordinance inasmuch as the assessment could not be made after expiry of two years after the end of financial year in which notice under section 56 of the Ordinance was served. No appeal by the Department appears to have been filed before the Tribunal.
3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 56 of the Ordinance and made a fresh assessm ent on 30-6-1988 by repeating the income originally assessed. The assessee again filed an appeal and the learned C.I.T.(A) set aside the assessment. Against that order of setting aside both the assessee as well as the Department approached the Tribunal. By way of the impugned order, dated 15-9-1992, a Division Bench of Tribunal came to the conclusion that the original assessm ent having already been annulled on the point of limitation and no new information warranting a notice under section 65 of the Ordinance having been brought on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly the assessm ent order under section 65 of the Ordinance was found to be void, ab initio, and therefore, annulled.
4. Thereafter, at the request of the Revenue, the aforesaid question was framed by the Tribunal by way of its order, dated 2-5-1993.
5. After hearing the parties at length, we will readily agree to sustain the objection put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent that the question as framed is more in nature of an argument and that it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We will also agree that availability of a definite information warranting initiation of re-assessment proceedings is necessarily a question of fact. Therefore, it can hardly be a moot point for consideration and our answer under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
6. That being so, we will decline to answer. .