Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)

Section: 35,Second SchedulePartIClause7(i),7(ii),7(iii)

ORDER [The Order was passed by Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member.] - This misc. Application calls for rectification of the order of the ITAT. The application which has been supported by the same arguments which were part of the main appeal speaks as follows:- "1. That the word 'record' as used in section 35 constitutes all what was submitted in writing or verbally before the learned D.B. [As held by S.C. of India in Mahran Mills (Pvt.) Limited Vs. ITO - [1959-36-ITR-350]. If an argument or plea duly raised before the ITAT remains unconsidered or unattended then same makes the appellant order erroneous and rectifiable under section 35. This error has resulted in miscarriage of Justice and it was in the interest of justice and fair-paly that such an erroneous order may be recalled and rectified. Copies of the ITAT's order in M.A. No. 123 to 125/LB/1996 in the case of M/s Control System Engineers (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore v. Chairman Penel-08, Company Zone, Lahore and in M.A. No.284/LB/1995 in the case of ITO. Circle-02, Lahore v. Mr. Faraz Rashid, Lahore are enclosed as Annex 'C & D' respectively. In both these above-mentioned orders the original appellate orders of the ITAT were recalled and rectified because in the original appellate orders some plea or argument of the assessee had remained unconsidered resulting in miscarriage of justice. 2. That at the time of hearing of these appeals before the learned D.B. on 12-1-2002 it was pleaded before it; i) The sub-clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of Clause 7 of the Part-I of the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act were disjunctive and not conjunctive as these were independent of each other and deal with exclusively separate situations. There could not possibly be any factual situation, which could be governed by all the three sub-clauses simultaneously. ii) The three sub-clauses of Clause 7 (supra) were disjunctive as the word "and" had not been written at the end of sub-clause (i) and (ii). iii) The three sub-clauses of Clause 7 (supra) were disjunctive, as the period of exemption had separately been mentioned in each one of them although it was for same number of years. Had they been conjunctive then period of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492