"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./2005J2017_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eAMENDMENT OF ASSESSMENT\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eJamrabi\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eJamrabi\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2006-06-13T10:38:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2006-06-13T10:38:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e2161\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e12323\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier Technologies (Pvt) Ltd\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e102\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e24\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e15133\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.3821\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n@page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003cscript src=\"../../../nc.js\" type=\"text/javascript\" \u003e\u003c/script\u003e\r\n  \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eAMENDMENT OF ASSESSMENT\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e[A BRIEF STUDY OF SECTION\r\n122 OF THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 AND SECTIONS 65 \u0026amp; 66A OF THE REPEALED\r\nINCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 1979]\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\nMuhammad Shahid Baig, Advocate High Court, Lahore\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe basic function of the legislature is to make laws\r\nand judiciary is responsible to understand, comprehend and interpret the law.\r\nIt is the judiciary who while exercising the power of judicial review gathers\r\nthe intention of the legislature contained in any law to apply it in its true\r\nperspective. This process of interpretation takes years to comprehend the laws.\r\nThe judiciary took almost two decades to comprehend the earlier law on the\r\nsubject i.e. sections 65 \u0026amp; 66A. These remedial provisions remained in vogue\r\nfor more than\u002720 years and there has been a veritable war between the Taxpayers\r\nand Tax Collectors about the invocation and interpretation of these penal\r\nprovisions of the Fiscal Statute. Now a new chapter has been opened by\r\nrepealing the old law and enacting a new theory with various amendments through\r\ninsertion of section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe subsection (1) of section 122 of the Income Tax\r\nOrdinance, 2001 empowers the Commissioner to amend an assessment order treated\r\nas issued under section 120 or 121 of the new law or the assessment order\r\nissued under sections 59, 59A, 62, 63 or 65 of the old law by making necessary\r\nalterations or additions. Although this provision authorizes the Commissioner\r\nto amend an assessment but there are certain prerequisites to invoke this\r\nprovision which are provided in the subsequent subsections. As per this\r\nsubsection, the basic requirement is that an assessment order sought to be\r\namended should have been treated as issued under section 120 or 121 of the new\r\nlaw and it should have been issued under sections 59, 59A, 62, 63 or 65 of the\r\nold law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eBriefly stating, a Return of income shall be taken to\r\nbe complete if it is in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of\r\nsection 114, which means it shall be in the prescribed form and be accompanied\r\nby such annexures, statements or documents as may be prescribed and it shall\r\nfully state all the relevant particulars or information as specified in the\r\nform of Return including a declaration of the record kept by the Taxpayer and\r\nshall be signed by the authorized person. One thing more should be remembered\r\nhere that as per subsection 3 of section 120, the Commissioner shall issue a\r\nNotice to the Taxpayer requiring to furnish such information particulars,\r\nstatements, or documents which are missing in the Return and in case of\r\nfailure, the Return furnished shall be treated as invalid Return as if it had\r\nnot been furnished. Here I would like to emphasize that a general impression\r\ndeveloped after the inception of new law that whatever Return is ,furnished\r\nshall ipso facto be treated, as assessment order is not correct. After due\r\nconsideration of these provisions, one can understand that only a complete\r\nReturn is treated as assessment order issued under section 120: And if the\r\nReturn is incomplete, Commissioner shall issue a Notice requiring the Taxpayer\r\nto meet with the deficiencies. This point is noteworthy that only a complete\r\nand valid Return is to be treated as assessment order issued under section 120.\r\nThe verification of Return and all the supporting documents/details etc. as\r\nrequired by the Statute is very essential. So it can safely be said that Return\r\nis accepted after due application of mind for treating it as assessment order\r\nissued to the Taxpayer. I repeat that only a complete Return after conscious\r\napplication of mind can be treated as assessment order issued to the Taxpayer\r\nwhich can further be amended by the Commissioner under section 122(1) or any\r\nother officer to whom the powers should specifically be delegated by the\r\nCommissioner to proceed in accordance with this remedial provision of law. One\r\nother point is important that delegation of the powers by the Commissioner is\r\nnot a compulsion at law. Although the Commissioner is empowered to delegate his\r\nauthority under section 210 to some other officer but the non delegation of the\r\npowers to some other officer cannot be objected to as it is within the\r\ndiscretion of the Commissioner and when a discretion of law is exercised by the\r\ncompetent authority, it is not open to any exception. This view has been upheld\r\nby the Karachi High Court in a judgment reported as 2004 PTD 1173.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eOn going through sections 210 and 239 of the new\r\nOrdinance, it would come to light that all pending matters including proceedings\r\nunder section 65 of the Repealed Ordinance at the time of commencement of the\r\nnew Ordinance are required to be decided in accordance with the provisions\r\ncontained in the Repealed Ordinance but by an authority competent under the new\r\nlaw i.e., Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. It is relevant to add that as per new\r\nlaw, the pivotal position in the execution of Income Tax Law is occupied by the\r\nCommissioner in whom all the powers are vested. The Commissioner may exercise\r\nall or any of these powers himself or may delegate all or any of his powers to\r\nany other Taxation Officer. However after inception of new law, the scheme of\r\nold remedial provisions would not prevail rather loss of revenue can be\r\nretrieved through application of section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\r\nThe Lahore High Court, Lahore\u0027s judgment reported as (2005) 91 Tax 480 (sic),\r\ncan be consulted in this regard.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eAfter subsection (1) L may directly switch over to\r\nsubsection (5) skipping over the subsections (2), (3), (4) and (4A) which are\r\nrelevant to limitation but it would not mean that I am going to ignore these\r\nvital provisions. The subsection (5) says that an assessment order shall only\r\nbe amended under subsection (1) and an amended assessment for that year shall\r\nonly be further amended under subsection (4) where, on the basis of definite\r\ninformation acquired from an audit or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied\r\nthat:-\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i) any income chargeable to tax has escaped\r\nassessment; or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii) total income has been underassessed, or assessed\r\nat too low a rate, or has been the subject of excessive relief or refund; or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii) any amount under a head of income has been\r\nmisclassified.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe corresponding subsections of previous law to this\r\nprovision are 65(2), 65(1)(a) \u0026amp; 65(1)(b). These provisions are very vital\r\nto be understood. As per old law, there were two conditions provided in\r\nsubsection (2) of section 65 that the proceedings under section 65(1) can be\r\ninitiated upon receiving definite information and that too after obtaining\r\nprevious approval of the IAC. Whereas, as per new law, as stated earlier, the\r\nentire authority under section 122(1) vests with the Commissioner until and\r\nunless he delegates his powers to some other officer. Now as per new law, the\r\ncondition of approval has been waived off and there is only one condition in\r\nthe field that assessment can be amended under subsection (1) after acquiring\r\ndefinite information through Audit or otherwise from which it can be inferred\r\nthat any income chargeable to tax has partly escaped assessment. I mean to say\r\nthat if any income from one source has been assessed omitting the other source\r\nthen it can be said that income from that other source has escaped assessment.\r\nIt can also be said that it is not fully assessed or partly escaped assessment.\r\nSecond is the case of under assessment. It may apply to the situation where a\r\nparticular source of income has been assessed but the income from this source\r\nhas not been fully assessed. Thirdly, when assessed at too low a rate means and\r\ncovers those cases where income has been correctly assessed but a lower rate of\r\nTax has been wrongly adopted. A point is to be remembered here that computation\r\nof lower tax as a result of miscalculation is strictly speaking not covered by\r\nthis section but by section 156 of the old law and 221 of the new law. However\r\nthe Courts have held that both these provisions are not mutually exclusive. If\r\na case is covered by both sections, choice lies with the Deputy Commissioner/\r\nTaxation Officer as per old law and the Commissioner as per new law. Fourthly,\r\nthis provision would apply if the total income has been the subject of\r\nexcessive relief or refund. This term covers all the cases where any deduction,\r\nexemption, rebate or refund has been wrongly allowed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eLastly if any amount under a head of income has been\r\nmisclassified. This is a new provision having no parallel provision in the old\r\nlaw. The implications of this provision would be discussed later, before which\r\nI will discuss the basic requirement of this section which is the definite information.\r\nIn subsection (8) definite information has been defined but this definition is\r\nnot conclusive and it includes information of sales or purchases of any goods\r\nmade by the taxpayer, receipts of the taxpayer from services rendered or any\r\nother receipts that may be chargeable to tax under this Ordinance, and on the\r\nacquisition, possession or disposal of any money, asset, valuable article or\r\ninvestment made or expenditure incurred by the taxpayer. The phrase\r\n\u0026quot;definite information\u0026quot; has been thoroughly examined, interpreted and\r\nillustrated by the judiciary. This phrase used in section 65(2) of the old law\r\nand sections 122(5) and 122(8) of the new law is in fact penal in nature and\r\nrequires that the concerned officer must have some material evidence in his possession\r\nin respect of the particular matter which he wants to re-consider. The material\r\nalready available on record cannot light-heartedly be used for this purpose, as\r\nthe same may amount to change of opinion., Once assessment is complete and had\r\nattained finality, the officer concerned on the basis of record which was\r\nalready available with him and without acquiring any new information which\r\ncould be termed as definite information cannot invoke this remedial provision\r\nof law. Here I would like to share the views of the judiciary on the subject.\r\nThe most renowned judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was delivered in\r\nthe case of Edulji Dinshaw Limited. This case is reported as PLD 1990 SC 399 =\r\n1990 PTD 155. It provides that once all the facts have been fully disclosed by\r\nthe assessee and considered by the Income Tax Authorities and the assessments\r\nhave been consciously completed, and no new fact has been discovered, there can\r\nbe no scope for interference with these concluded transactions under the provisions\r\nof section 65 of the Ordinance on the ground that the income chargeable to tax\r\nunder the Ordinance has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed, etc, in\r\nthe meaning of clauses (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 65 of the\r\nOrdinance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn an other case viz. Phillps Electrical Company of\r\nPakistan (Private) Limited reported as 1990 PTD 389 Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar\r\nobserved that the term definite information conveys a meaning which is not the\r\nsame as change of opinion. A different interpretation of any provision of law\r\nor deriving a different conclusion from a given set of facts will not amount to\r\ndefinite information. It will be a change of opinion. Therefore the basis for\r\nreopening the assessment was a change of opinion of the respondent. The respondent\r\ntherefore could not have taken any action under section 65 of the Income Tax\r\nOrdinance as it was not based on any definite information, but on change of\r\nopinion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn the case reported as 1997 SCMR 1256, the Supreme\r\nCourt of Pakistan held that there is no concealment of facts. Everything had\r\nbeen declared right from the very beginning and even after 1980 the legal\r\nposition did not change as section 34A was not applicable to the respondent. In\r\nthese circumstances, the opinion of the petitioners that a definite information\r\nhas been received as it was discovered that section 34A was ignored, was\r\ncompletely misconceived and based on mis appreciation and misapplication of law.\r\nWhere an assessment has been framed consciously by applying mind and there\r\nbeing no concealment of facts by the assessee, discovery of the fact that a\r\nprovision of law had been ignored or not applied cannot be called a definite\r\ninformation. In Central Insurance Co. It was observed that the expression\r\ndefinite information will include factual information as well as information\r\nabout the existence of a binding judgment of a competent Court of law/forum for\r\nthe purposes of section 65 of the Ordinance. This dictum will not cover a case\r\nwhere after framing assessment consciously, the Assessing Authorities realize\r\nthat any provision of law has been ignored, not applied or misapplied. Such\r\ndiscovery does not fall within the ambit of term definite information as used\r\nin section 65 of the Ordinance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn another famous judgment of Messrs Central\r\nInsurance Company, reported as 1993 SCMR 1232, it was held that the words\r\n\u0026quot;definite information\u0026quot; are the key-words for the purpose of\r\njustifying action under subsection (1) and as the said words had not been\r\n\u0026quot;defined in the Ordinance, they will carry their literary meanings. It was\r\nobserved that every information cannot be treated as the basis for reopening of\r\nthe assessment but the information should be of the nature which should qualify\r\nas \u0026quot;definite information\u0026quot; and that the expression definite\r\ninformation\u0026quot; could not be given a universal meaning but it will have to be\r\nconstrued in each case. It was further observed that where an assessee\r\ndiscloses all the material facts without any concealment and the assessment had\r\nbeen consciously completed by the Income Tax Officer, in such a case, in the\r\nabsence of the discovery of any new facts which can be treated as\r\n\u0026quot;Definite information\u0026quot; there cannot be any scope for reopening of the\r\nassessment under section 65. It was further observed that any change of opinion\r\non the basis of the same material by the Income Tax Officer will not warrant\r\npressing into service the said provision. It was observed that a Circular from\r\nthe Board of Revenue interpreting any provision of law was not a \u0026quot;definite\r\ninformation\u0026quot; which will include factual information as well as information\r\nabout the existence of a binding judgment of competent Court of law/forum for\r\nthe purpose of section 65 of the Ordinance, but any interpretation of a\r\nprovision of law by a functionary which has not been entrusted with the\r\nfunction to interpret such provision judicially cannot be treated as a\r\n\u0026quot;definite information\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn its judgment reported as 2004 PTD 1901, the\r\nKarachi High Court held that the pronouncements made in the aforecited case\r\nestablish beyond any reasonable doubt the principle that misapplication of law\r\nor ignorance of law or a principle/pronouncement made by the superior Courts\r\nwould not furnish a ground for reopening of assessment under section 65 of the\r\nrepealed Ordinance as the said misapplication or ignorance could not come\r\nwithin the scope of definite information. The Assessing Authority had framed\r\nthe assessment consciously, with\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"