The petitioner is an individual/assessee of the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 2000-2001 he returned an income of Rs.1,06,600 under self-assessment scheme. On selection of his case for total audit his income was enhanced to Rs.2,40,000 through an assessment order framed on 18-5-2001.
2. He succeeded partly before the learned First Appellate Authority where estimation of sales was found to be excessive and, therefore, reduced to some extent.
3. Before the learned Tribunal for the first time, the assessee agitated against the selection of his case for total audit. .Learned-Members of the Tribunal refused to entertain the plea. Thereafter, they also rejected the plea of the assessee for reference of certain questions of law with regard to the selection of the case for total audit as proposed by the assessee. This has brought him before this Court under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 alleging that tollowing questions of law have arisen out ' of the order of the Tribunal, dated 11-10-2001:---
(i) Whether the judgment made by the Hon'ble High Court Lahore in W.P. Nos.8003, 8004; 10611, 10612, 8683. 8389 and 10776 of 2001 was binding on the department?
(ii) Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Federal Tax Ombudsman was binding on the Department'?
(iii) Whether in the light of above judgments the Special Officer of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faisalabad were competent to assess and decide the cases of SAS selected through computer balloting?
(iv) Whether the selection of applicant's case for total audit was. Illegal, uncalled for and against self-assessm ent scheme'?
(v) Whether the Circular No.7(7) S. Asstt./2000 Islamabad, dated 17-7-2001 issued to all Regional Commissioners could be ignored by the CIT(Appeals) Faisalabad or was not binding in nature?
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that this reference petition is not competent. Learned Members of the Tribunal are right in observing that the issue of acceptance of return under self-assessment scheme was never a moot point before them. Even otherwise, it is our consistent view that generally the acceptance of a return under self-assessment does not give rise to the question of law to be answered by this Court. For, the question so involved in not substantive in nature.
5. Reference dismissed in limine. .