NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.----The assessee in this further appeal under section 136(1) (since amended) is an Individual and a partner of a firm namely Saeed Akhtar & Company, Lahore. For the assessm ent year 1990-91 his returned income at Rs.41,000 was accepted under section 59(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. However, that order was rectified under section 156 of the Ordinance correcting the returned income to Rs.52,936. While making the order of rectification on 16-9-1991 the Assessing Officer also noted that the petitioner had partly constructed a house in Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore.
The investment made therein was found to have been properly documented.
2. Subsequently, the revising authority proceeded to cancel the assessment and to direct framing of a fresh assessm ent on the ground that earlier assessment order under section 59(1) of the Ordinance was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the Assessing Officer failed to probe the investments made in construction of property.
3. The order so made on 19-12-1991 under section 66-A was successfully challenged bctore the Tribunal. According to the learned Division Bench the observations of the I.A.C. That investments in property had escaped probe were contrary to the facts on record. Therefore, the impugned order under section 66-A was directed to be cancelled.
4. The appellant/revenue claims that following question of law has arisen out of the said order of the Tribunal dated 20-3-1997.
"Whether on the facts and law and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that assessm ent framed under section 59(1) was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue specially when the acceptance of the declared income that included ad hoc addition of Rs.20,275 was against law and probe into sources of investment in construction of house amounting to Rs.8,50,750 had not been made."
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that the aforesaid question does not raise any legal controversy to be resolved by this Court under section 136(1) (since amended) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal, as observed above recorded a finding of fact that the impugned order under section 66-A was not justified in view of two facts. Firstly, that the order framed under section 59(1) was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and secondly, that the Assessing Officer having taken note of the investments claimed by the assessee in the property it could not be said that the required prdbe into these sources had not been made.
6. That being so, we will refuse to entertain this further appeal.
7. Dismissed in limine. .