' This further appeal under section 136(1) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 assails an order of the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Camp at Faisalabad, dated 21-4-1998 claiming that following question of law has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to delete the addition made under section 24(ff) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 instead of setting it aside?"
2. According to the statement of the case the appellant/assessee is a Private Limited Company which at the relevant time derived income from process of cloth. For the assessment year 1995-96 a return was filed to declare net income at Rs,1,14,172. In the course of assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee paid a sum of Rs,63,886 to Messrs Longman Industrial Store, Faisalabad through a single bill. That amount being more than Rs,50,000 and not paid through cheque was found hit by the mischief of section 24(ff) of the late Ordinance and accordingly was disallowed as an expense.
3. Before the First Appellate Authority it was contended that as a matter of fact the aforesaid amount was paid to the said party through different bills on different dates. Also that before, making of the addition the assessee was not confronted with the objection of the Revenue. The learned CIT(Appeals) agreed and accordingly deleted the addition. The assessee also succeeded before the Tribunal which after finding that the assessment record did not indicate issuance of a notice confronting the assessee, proceeded to maintain the order of First Appellate Authority.
4. On consideration of the submissions made by the Revenue we are of the view that the question of law as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the finding of fact earlier recorded by CIT(Appeals) that the aforesaid amount was paid to the payee through different bills on different dates which were below statutory amount of Rs,50,000 have not been controverted. To support the aforesaid statement before the First Appellate Authority a copy of the ledger of the A payee was produced alongwith the copies of the relevant record which were perused by the learned CIT(Appeals). In view of these findings of fact, the absence of service of a notice confronting the addition becomes of secondary nature. If these findings of fact had not been recorded by the First Appellate Authority the submissions made by the Revenue as detailed in the statement of the case would have been relevant for consideration if mere non-service of a notice renders the impugned addition to be illegal.
5. In view of these findings of fact recorded by CIT (Appeals) we will hold that the question as framed is of mere academic interest and accordingly refused to answer the same.
6. Answer declined.
Answer declined.