NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue has stated the case framing following questions for our consideration and answer:--- "0) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal not justified in deleting the addition because of the fact that tl Income-tax Officer violated the mandatory provisions of the provi to section 13(1) and section 13(2)?
(ii) Whether, in the event that Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction is creation of the statute and he is not a judicial Court, his action the facts and circumstances of this case, is not void even if provisions of the proviso to section 13(1) and section 13(2) are directory nature?"
2. At the outset, the learned counsel agrees that in view of our r opinion expressed in C.T.R. No.179 of 1991, dated 13-11-2000 re: C v. Ch. Muhammad Ahmed Goreya, Advocate, the answer to the quest to be in the affirmative. In that order a reference was also made to an ( opinion expressed by us in C.T.R. No.107 of 1991, date. Messrs Khurram Sagir Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Zone-A, concluding that the provisions of section 13 of the Income-ta, relevant time contemplated two consecutive approvals one aftt reference was made to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Court recorded in re: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad 2000 PTD 280.
3. For the reasons recorded in the afore-said reference, our answer to the above question referred in this case is also in the affirmative. .