MANSOOR AHMAD, J.- The petitioner was aggrieved from the selection of his case for detailed scrutiny for the assessm ent year 1994-1995? He challenges the selection of his case for detailed scrutiny through the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Firm is an assessee of the income tax in Circle 23, Zone A, Lahore. For the assessm ent year 1994-95, the Central Board of- Revenue through its Circular 9 of 1994 announced a Self Assessment Scheme. Prior to this scheme the Central Board of Revenue had also announced a Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1992-93 through Circular 16 of 1992. In para 4 of the Self-Assessment Scheme for 1992- 93, it was provided that from amongst those qualifying for the Self-Assessment Scheme, returns may be selected for audit through Computer ballot or with the approval of Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, where gross under statement of income is suspected on the basis of definite information based on material evidence, It was further provided in the scheme that a case once selected through Computer ballot will not be ear marked for such ballot in the next two years. The case of the petitioner for assessm ent year 1992-93 was selected for detailed scrutiny. The petitioner declared income for assessm ent year 1992-93 at Rs. 72483/- but after detailed scrutiny the income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 171,000/-. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner whereby the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal alongwith certain relief reduced the assessed income to Rs.
1.15,965/- and the tax payable on the said income was Rs. 6705/-. For the assessment year 1994- 95, the petitioner submitted his return under Self- Assessment Scheme for that year declaring an income of Rs. 1,24,000/- and paid a tax of Rs. 8320/-.
3. That the case of the petitioner for assessment year of 1992-93 was selected for detailed scrutiny as such according to the scheme he enjoyed immunity from detailed scrutiny for next two years which included the assessm ent year 1994-95. The department however, again selected the case of the petitioner for assessm ent year 1994-95 for detailed scrutiny. The petitioner represented claiming his right of immunity under Circular 16 of 1992 but his request was declined by respondent No. 1 as well as by respondent No. 2. This has led to the filing of present writ petition whereby selection of his case for detailed scrutiny for assessment year 1994-95 was assailed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in. View of Circular No. 16/92 the petitioner has earned the right of immunity from detailed scrutiny for next two years because the case of the petitioner for assessm ent year 1992-93 was selected for detailed scrutiny. The petitioner placed reliance on paragraph 4 of Circular 16 of 1992 whereby the Self-Assessment Scheme was announced. Para 4 of the Circular contains a note in the followings terms:- "A case once selected through computer ballot will not be earmarked for such ballot in the next two years".
The petitioner claimed immunity from the selection for detailed scrutiny for assessment year 1994- 95.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue could not justify the selection of the case of the petitioner for detailed scrutiny for assessment year 1994-95. The Self- Assessment Scheme for the year 1992-93 contained a promise and an undertaking that in case of assessee whose case was selected for detailed scrutiny for 1992-93, for next two years their cases would not be selected for detailed scrutiny. This was a solemn and statutory promise by the State and by virtue of this promise, the petitioner has earned a right of immunity from selection of his case from detailed scrutiny for next two years. Accordingly the selection of the case of the petitioner for detailed scrutiny for assessm ent year 1994-95 was arbitrary and without lawful authority being disregard to the provision of Self-Assessm ent Scheme announced and enforce through Circular No. 16 of 1992.
The learned counsel for the revenue could not advance any plausible reason.
6. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the case of the petitioner for assessm ent year 1992-93 was selected for detailed scrutiny therefore, as per terms of Circular 16 of 1992 he enjoyed immunity for next two years which included assessment year 199.4-95 Accordingly the selection of the case of the petitioner for detailed scrutiny for assessm ent year 1994-95 was illegal and without any lawful authority. I therefore, allow this writ petition and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 11.3.1995 and order of respondent No. 2 dated 7.5.1995 are set aside and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to immunity from selection of a detailed scrutiny for the assessm ent year 1994- 95. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.