NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of the CIT (A) whereby addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- and 10,0, 000/- made under section 13(1) (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was deleted on the basis of procedural short-comings, if any, when the basic requirement to assume the jurisdiction by the ITO had been fulfilled?
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we will readily agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the issue in hand already stands determined in favour of the assessee in CIT No. 324/91 Re: CIT v. Dr. Mrs. S.P. Niazi, Professor Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore. While finding for the assessee we agreed with the view earlier expressed by a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Muhammad Kasim (2000 PTD 280). In that case it was observed that parallel provisions of section 4(2-D) of the late Act postulated two separate and independent approvals of the IAC for making additions to the declared incomes.
3. That being so for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid CIT No. 324/91 we will return an affirmative answer to the question. 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.