1989 PLP 1182 (PTD)
SIDDIQUE TEXTILES LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1182 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Unman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SIDDIQUE TEXTILES LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1182 (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 1989 PLP 1182 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Unman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1182 (PTD) (SIDDIQUE TEXTILES LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi. Advocate and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Ishaque, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th February 1989
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 26th November, 1984 of the Lahore High Court in T.Rs. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1975) --S. 13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)--Relevant basis for assessment were not ignored not there was any defect in the manner adopted--Assessment made was honest--Conduct of assessee amongst other factors was rightly kept in view--Not finding any justification for interference on merits of case leave to appeal was refused. Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi A I R 1937 P C 133; Miss Assia v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal etc. P L D 1979 S C 949 and Mian Muhammad Sharif & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1987 S C M R 1254 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. 13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)--Relevant basis for assessment were not ignored not there was any defect in the manner adopted--Assessment made was honest--Conduct of assessee amongst other factors was rightly kept in view--Not finding any justification for interference on merits of case leave to appeal was refused. Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi A I R 1937 P C 133; Miss Assia v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal etc. P L D 1979 S C 949 and Mian Muhammad Sharif & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1987 S C M R 1254 ref. Talib H. Rizvi. Advocate and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ishaque, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th February 1989 MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: -Leave to appeal has been sought, against the impugned decision by the High Court in two Tax references. As stated by the learned counsel the impugned judgment goes against what he contended to be the correct interpretation of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. He in this behalf has relied on `Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi' (AIR 1937 Privy Council 133), and `Miss Assia v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal etc.' (P L D 1979 S C 949). Another recent judgment of this Court, namely, `Messrs Mian Muhammad Sharif & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax' (1987 S C M R 1254) has also been referred to at the Bar. We do agree with the learned counsel that the questions of law regarding interpretation of section 13, as are involved in this case, stand already resolved, The point, however, is one of fact and appreciation of the material before the Income-tax Officer and the higher Income-tax Authorities. The learned counsel contends; that the basis for the assessment and the manner in which it has been made against the interest of the petitioner, after holding that it was a no regular account case, were not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. After hearing the learned counsel, at some length, we are of the opinion that relevant basis for the impugned assessment were not ignored, nor there was any defect in the manner adopted. The difference of opinion can however be; whether, the assessment made was honest or not. In our view, there was nothing dishonest in it. The conduct of the petitioner amongst other factors was rightly kept in view. Thus not finding any justification for interference in so far as the merits of the case are concerned, we do not consider it a fit case for leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. MA.K./S-281/S Leave refused.