FINDINGS /DECISION ' This is a complaint on behalf of a company which mainly derives income from exports. In the complaint the order under sections. 62/138 of the Income Tax Ordinance dated 20-12-2000 which was passed by Panel 6, Special Zone, Lahore headed by Inspecting Additional Commissioner has been challenged. In this order the interest income of Rs,196,789 which according to the complainant was covered in its statement under section 143B has been assessed under section 62 while an addition of Rs,650,000 has also been made under section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance. It is contended in the complaint that the said assessment order is arbitrary, devoid of facts and abounds in misinterpretation of law with complete disregard of the directions of the C.I.T.
(Appeals). It has been prayed that the Chairman Panel be directed to rectify the assessment under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 so that justice is done to the complainant.
2. The respondent's reply has been received and the complaint was originally fixed for hearing on 9-7-2001 but no one attended either on behalf of the complainant or the respondent on that date.
The complaint was to be fixed for hearing again but on 23-7-2001 Mr. Mahmood Ahmed, Chief Executive of the complainant company appeared with Mr. Muhammad Javaid Iqbal of Messrs Javaid Jalal Amjad & Company, Chartered Accountants. Mr. Wajid Akram, D.C.I.T., Special Zone, Lahore also appeared on that day. It was explained by the parties that they got the impression on telephone that the hearing had been fixed for 23-7-2001. Since no hearing was actually scheduled for 23-7-2001, the date of 29-8-2001 was fixed for hearing which was noted by representatives of the 'complainant company as well as by the representative of the respondent. On 29-8-2001, however, no one attended on behalf of the complainant while the respondent's representative appeared and was heard. In the respondent's reply it is stated that the original assessment was set aside by the CIT (Appeals) and the reassessment has been made in accordance with law.
Regarding' the assessm ent of interest income it is stated that the provisions of section 80B of the Income Tax Ordinance are not applicable in the case' of interest earned by a limited company and therefore, the assessm ent of the interest income under normal law was quite valid. It was also stated that the addition under section 12(18) was, also correctly made because the amount of Rs,650,000 was received as a cash loan to which the said section was applicable.
3. The issues involved have been considered and it is obvious that regardless of the validity or otherwise of the complainant's contentions, this is not a case in which the provisions of section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance can be invoked. The said section can be invoked only to "rectify any mistake apparent from the record". In the instant case there is no such obvious mistake. The complainant's prayer tan, therefore, not be accepted. The complaint stands dismissed accordingly.
Complaint dismissed.