' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---In this further appeal under section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, dated 2-2-1998 is assailed.
2. The appellant is an assessee of the Income Tax Department. During the course of framing of an assessm ent for the year 1985-86 he agreed for an addition of Rs,80,000 under section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Thereafter he was served with a notice, dated 15-10-1997 seeking his explanation as to why penalty proceedings should not be initiated against him. Finally through the order recorded under section 111 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, he was burdened with a penalty of Rs, 61,815 being 150% of the tax evaded.
3. Learned First Appellate Authority reduced the quantum of penalty to 100% of the tax evaded i,e, to Rs,41,210. The learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order, however, refused to interfere. Hence this further appeal.
4. On 18-1-2001 this appeal was admitted to consider the issue if in the given facts the provisions of section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not attracted inasmuch as the penalty had, in fact, been imposed on the addition which was made with reference to the provisions of subsection
(2) of section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to agree that the addition in question was in fact made under subsection (2) of section 13 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Mere fact that in the show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer made a reference to subsection (2) of section 13 does not mean that the addition was actually made under these provisions. The assessment order itself makes a reference to the provisions of section 13(1)(d) which certainly appears to be the appropriate provisions in this case.
6. It will be noted that the petitioner disclosed the purchase of 'a 4-1/2 Marlas plot in the name of his minor son. The value of the plot was declared at Rs,90,000. On the basis of a complaint the Assessing Officer opined that the real value of the plot purchased by the assessee came to Rs,1,85,000. At that stage the assessee agreed for an addition of Rs,80,000 under section 13(1)(d) for valuation of the property at Rs,1,70,000. Learned counsel for the Revenue is correct in pointing out that the addition was made under section 13(1)(d) while probing the sources of investment. These provisions pertain and contemplate an addition where an assessee fails to explain the amount expanded in making an investment. The assessee having himself agreed to the addition, the provisions of section 111 of that Ordinance were certainly attracted. All the more so when it is not denied by the assessee that the above agreement was struck subject to the penalty provisions.
7. That being so we will hold that in the given facts the addition having rightly been made under section 13(1)(d) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the penalty provisions of section 111 of that Ordinance were rightly invoked.
8. .