1985 PLP 189 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI Versus FAZAL PEERA
| Citation | 1985 PLP 189 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Z.C. Valiani and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI Versus FAZAL PEERA |
| Primary Law | Income-tax, Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 189 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax, Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 189 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Z.C. Valiani and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 189 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI Versus FAZAL PEERA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasrullah Awan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 27th September 1983.
- The admitted position is that the respondent had filed return under the self-assessment scheme. In his order the Income-tax Officer has nowhere pointed out that the provision of this scheme have not been complied with by the respondent. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in resorting to assessment under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the department. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the affirmative.
Headnotes / Summary
S.23(3)--Self-assessment scheme--Return filed by assessee under self-assessment scheme--I.T.O. resorting to assessment under S.23(3) of Income-tax Act without pointing out that provisions of said scheme were not complied with by assessee--Recourse to assessment under S.23(3) by I.T.O., held, was not justified and Income-tax Officer directed to accept return of income filed by assessee. Respondent in person
Judgment & Decree
Respondent in person Date of hearing: 27th September 1983. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-- The department has filed application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act raising the following questions:-- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to accept the return of income filed under self-assessment scheme when the said scheme is no bar for the Income-tax Officer to proceed under normal law and discretion is vested in the Income-tax Officer by rule 46 of the Income-tax Rules regarding self-assessment procedure? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the income-tax Officer to accept the return of income filed under self-assessment scheme when no books of accounts were maintained. by the assessee?" The respondent derives income from the property and from horse racing. For the assessment year 1970-71 the assessee filed his return declaring the total income of Rs.22,993 under the self-assessment scheme. The Income-tax Officer, however proceeded under section 23(3) and computed the total income of Rs.35,
600. The respondent filed an appeal before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who allowed it, and remanded the case back to the Income-tax Officer for passing a fresh order on the basis of the return filed under self-assessment scheme and if he wanted to reject the return income he must give good reason for it. The admitted position is that the respondent had filed return under the self-assessment scheme. In his order the Income-tax Officer has nowhere pointed out that the provision of this scheme have not been complied with by the respondent. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in resorting to assessment under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the department. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the affirmative. Reference answered. M.B.A. Questions answered in affirmative.