Law:

Section:

NASIM SIKANDAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This second appeal pertains to the assessment year 1989-90 and assails an order of CIT (A), Lahore dated 20-6-1993 whereby the learned first appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-assessee.

1. The facts of the case in a nutshell are; that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from dealings in jewellery was served with a notice under section 56 of the Ordinance to file a return for the assessment year 1989-90. In response a duplicate return declaring income at Rs.30,201 was filed with the contention that original had already been filed in Circle 10, Zone A, Lahore. Since the assessee could not come with an evidence confirming filing of original return as alleged the assessing officer proceeded to frame an assessment after serving upon a notice under section 61 of the Ordinance. -On 28-12-1992 the assessee was represented by Mr. Raza Ali Sheikh, ITP who sought an adjournment, which was allowed for 3-1-1993. However, on that date none appeared to represent the assessee and, therefore, an assessment under section 63 of the Ordinance was framed on 6-2-1993 to the best judgment of the assessing officer at a total sum of Rs.1,530,201. In the process the assessing officer, besides accepting the declared income at Rs.30,201 made two additions at Rs.1,162,500 and Rs.337,500 respectively under section 13(1)(a) and section 13(1)(a) and (aa) of the Ordinance. The assessing officer found that Shop No. 286 purchased by the assessee in Panorama Centre, Lahore on 30-6-1989 for a consideration of Rs.3 lac and declared at Rs.337,500 in the wealth statement was low.. The cost of shop in question measuring 151.40 sq. ft. was confronted on the basis of a parallel case detailed in the body of the assessment order. The assesssee was served with a notice under section 13(2) of the Ordinance asking him as to why the value of the demised Shop should not be adopted at Rs.15 lacs. However, in spite of proper service of notice none appeared for the assessee and, therefore, the above-said addition of Rs.1,162,500 on account of difference between price declared and the one estimated by the assessing officer on the basis of the parallel case referred to above. The other addition of Rs.3,37,500 resulted when the assessing officer found that the net wealth declared at Rs593,870 was not properly reconciled as even the declared value of shop to the extent of Rs337,500 also remained unexplained. It has also been recorded in the assessment order that in spite of service of notice no explanation or reconciliation of the wealth was provided. Before the first appellate authority framing of ex parte assessment was challenged but without any success. In spite of the reliance of the assessee on a reported case cited as (1982) 45-Tax-44 re: C.I.T. v. Sakhi Contractors & Engineers, Multan the learned first appellate authority not only confirmed the ex parte order but also both of the abovesaid additions. It was ultimately observed by the appellate authority that the assessee had been allowed adequate opportunity, which it failed to avail.