NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- This is a case stated by the Islamabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi. The following question has been framed for our consideration and answer:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ordering the deletion of addition made under section 13(1)(aa) and 13(1)(d) inspire of the fact that the approvals required under section 13 of the Ordinance, 1979 has been obtained by the Income Tax Officer from the. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before completion of the assessm ent?"
2. In response to a notice under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the assessee, an individual filed returns for the Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986- 87 respectively at Rs. 17,700 and. Rs. 21,250/-. These notices were served upon him after the revenue discovered that he had purchased 1/2 share in shop No. U-235 Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi at the declared share price of Rs.
1,32,500/-. While explaining the aforesaid investment he claimed gifts of certain amounts which were not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Also on inquiries through his Inspector, the Income Tax Officer concluded that the price of the property purchased by the assessee had been understated.
Accordingly, additions of Rs. 30,000/- and. Rs. 67,500/- respectively were made under section 13(1)
(aa) and 13(1)(d) of the Ordinance. The learned the assessment order. On further appeal the learned Tribunal found is as a fact that the independent previous approvals by the I.A.C. For making the impugned additions had not been obtained. Also it was observed that the departmental record was silent about the second notice required to be issued under sub-section
(2) of Section 1 3 of the Income Tax Ordinance. That having not been done, the Tribunal proceeded to cancel the assessm ent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue, we are of the view that the answer to the question has to be in the affirmative. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that two consecutive approvals for making of the impugned additions were not made, In a number of recent judgments, we have agreed with our learned brothers of the Karachi High Court in Re: Commissioner of Income Tax V. Muhammad Kasim (2000 PTD 280) wherein they had observed that the comparable provisions of Section 4(2-D) of the late Act of 1922 postulated two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. For making additions to the declared incomes. Also we note that neither the approval of draft assessment order nor a combined approvably the I. A.C.
Answered to the requirements of law. Lt was so found because of the use of words "prior approvals" in the proviso to Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Therefore, be possible exception to view held by the Tribunal can be taken.
4. Answered in the affirmative.