NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- This is a cases stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Unusually, the questions suggested by both the Revenue in the two years involved as well as the assessee have separately been referred to us. In order to bring the controversy to a close, we reframe these sections for our consideration and answer as follows:- "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case despite two separate mandatory approvals dated 18.5.1987, the Tribunal as correct in reaching the conclusion that approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance had not be obtained for determining the value of the investment and making the consequential addition for "deemed income"?
2. At the outset, the learned counsel agrees that in view of our recent opinion expressed in C.T.R. No. 179/91 dated 13.11.2000 Re: C.I.T, v. Ch. Muhammad Ahmed Goreya, Advocate, the answer to the question is to be in the affirmative, In that order a reference was also made to an earlier opinion expressed by us in C.T.R. No. 107/91 dated 26.10.2000 Re: M/s. Khurram Sagir Industries Ltd. V. C.I.T.
Zone-A Lahore While concluding that the provisions of section 13 of Income Tax Ordinance at the relevant time contemplated two consecutive approvals, one after the other, a reference was made to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court recorded in Re: Commissioner of income Tax V. Muhammad Kassim (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.