2002 PLP 255 (PTD)

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.

This further appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (since repealed) assails an order of the Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal recorded on 30-7-1997 on departmental appeal filed against an assessee Messrs Firdous Textile Mills, Faisalabad.

2. According to the facts as emerged from the record, the respondent assessee a Public Limited Company, at the relevant time derived income from processing of cloth. As against returned income of Rs. 15,232 for the assessment year 1990-91, its total income was assessed at Rs. 14,14,101 after rejection of accounts and making of certain additions. The Assessing Officer concluded that although the assessee had not declared any receipt from printing of cloth yet had claimed expenses on that score at Rs. 2,60,161 with the intention to suppress income. The Assessing Officer therefore found it liable under the provisions of section 111 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Also he made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 out of the total claim of bonus disbursed by the company during the relevant time at Rs. 3,80,

049. That disallowance was made with reference to the provisions as contained in section 23(1)(viii)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

3. The learned First Appellate Authority deleted both the aforesaid additions after finding them to have been made without any legal justification. While allowing relief and deleting addition under the head bonus. The learned First Appellate Authority relied upon a judgment of the Karachi High Court in re: C.I.T. v. Paracha Textile Mills, Karachi

238. On further appeal, the learned Tribunal maintained the deletion of both the aforesaid additions. In case of addition of as concealed income on account of "wrongly claimed" expenditure on depreciation, wages and bonus, it was found that the Assessing officer had not mentioned the provisions of law under which that addition was made. The departmental appeal, against the aforesaid relief was therefore rejected.

4. The learned counsel in terms of the contents of appeal claims that following questions of law have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal:

"

1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to delete the add back under the head bonus ignoring the provisions of section 23(viii)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?

2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to delete the addition on account of concealed income contrary to the provisions of section 111(2)(b)?

3. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified to allow the expenses on account of printing of cloth whereas printing of cloth was admittedly not under taken by the assessee?"

5. Having heard the learned counsel, we will not agree that any of the aforesaid questions raise a substantial legal controversy. The issue if an admissible expenses was actually incurred by the assesses during a particular assessment is pre-dominantly a question of fact. Therefore, it cannot be converted into one of law by simply saying that certain provisions of law had been ignored. Two consistent views of the forums below that an addition with respect to claimed expenses was unjustified does not give rise to a good reason requiring interference by this Court under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

6. Dismissed in limine. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-118/L Appeal dismissed.