' Through this single order we intend to dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 185, 186 and 187 of 1997.
2. In these further appeals under section 136(1) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the Revenue claims that following questions of law has arisen out of a consolidated order recorded by a learned Member in Chamber of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25-7-1997 in the case of the assessee, a private limited company which, at the relevant time, derived income from manufacturing and supply of different kinds of machinery:---
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the cancellation of assessments?
(ii) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant the setting aside of assessm ent instead of its cancellation?
(iii) Whether a procedural deficiency in an assessment can justify cancellation of the assessment, thus depriving the State its otherwise due share of tax?
2. The assessee returned a loss for the assessment year 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively at Rs,1,43,554, 1,69,315 and 1,97,423. Instead the assessments_ were framed under section 62 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 respectively at Rs,2,00,981, 47,692 and 1,21,520.
3. Subsequently these assessm ents were reopened on the ground that the assessee had concealed certain receipts in the three years involved. On usual proceedings through a consolidated order, dated 2-12-1993 the Assessing Officer framed re-assessments respectively at Rs,2,55,918, 18,713 (loss) and 42,594 (loss).
4. Learned First Appellate Authority on the authority of a certificate produced from Messrs Rubbrex Road Wheel Ltd. Concluded that no business was done by them with the appellant in the assessm ent years 1987-88 to 1989-90. Also that in the assessment year 1989-90 total purchases were made by them from the assessee at Rs,16,39,922. However, the Assessing Officer never bothered to verify the authenticity of the said certificate. Accordingly the re-assessment framed after reopening in the three years involved were cancelled.
5. On department appeal the learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order maintained the cancellation of assessm ents for similar reasons as earlier weighed with the First Appellate Authority.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that none of the three questions as reproduced above arise out of the impugned order. The issue if lack of consideration of a piece of evidence available on record, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the assessment orders instead of cancelling them does not arise at all. The reason simply being that the learned First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal found as a fact that there was no justifiable reason available with the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessments. The kind of definite information and the basis for re-opening taken by the Assessing Officer having been disapproved both by the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, there was no question of setting aside of the assessments.
7. Therefore, none of three questions as proposed can be B entertained for consideration.
8. Dismissed in limine.