NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal framing following questions which are stated to have arisen out of their order recorded on 10-1-1996 on the cross-appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue:--- "(i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the information received from the Excise and Taxation Officer on 20-9-1993 showing Messrs Chohan Flying Coach Service, Sahiwal as the owner of six passenger motor-vehicles can be rightly treated as definite information within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
(ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer rightly issued on 14-2- 1965 notice under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the respondent assessee?
(iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the Assessing Authority assumed jurisdiction under section 65 of the Ordinance, unlawfully?
(iv) Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly annulled the additional assessm ent under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 made on the respondent firm?"
2. According to the statement of the case, the assessee derives income from plying for hire a number of vehicles. On 20-9-1993, the Assessing Officer received an information from the Department of Excise and Taxation that Messrs Muhammad Jamil and Liaqat Ali proprietors of Messrs Chohan Flying Coach Service had got six vehicles registered in their names since 1989. The Assessing Officer finding that they had not shown any income in all the years under consideration i.e. 1989-90 to 1993-94 proceeded to re-open the assessments already framed. On usual proceedings he concluded that there had been escapement of income, and therefore, proceeded, frame additional assessm ents by resort to the provisions contained in section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
3. The learned First Appellate Authority allowed partial relief only by way of reducing the income so computed. On further appeal, however, the Tribunal was of the view that the Assessing Officer proceeded under section 65 without any definite information and that the assessment framed after re-opening were a case of mere change of opinion. In the view of the learned Members it was established that there was no definite information before the Assessing Officer while initiating re- assessm ent proceedings. Thereafter, at the request of the Revenue, the aforesaid questions were framed for our consideration and reply.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we will agree with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondentassessee that none of the aforesaid questions arose out of the order of the Tribunal. It will be seen that the Tribunal as .a fact found that the alleged information pertained to two persons namely Muhammad Jamil and Liaquat Ali, who were different from any of the three persons constituting the assessee at the relevant time. It was noted that the learned Assessing Authority issued notice under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 without considering the status of the assessee and proceeded to frame re-assessment in the year 1989-90 on the registered firm which did not even exist in that year. It was also noted that the affidavits filed by the real owners remained un-rebutted. From the affidavits as well as the statement of the real owners of the vehicles the Tribunal as a fact concluded that Muhammad Jamil and Liaquat Ali had nothing to do with the income of the said vehicles. Further that in the assessment year 1993-94 at the time of making assessm ent for the year under section 59(1) of the Ordinance on 16-4-1994 the alleged information was already available with the Assessing Officer received vide Letter No.1405, dated 20-9-1993. That being so the Tribunal finally concluded that it was a case of change of opinion and was not a case of availability of definite information of escapement of income.
5. That being so, as noted earlier, we will sustain the legal objection and hold that the questions as framed do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
Answer declined. .