2001 PLP 2213 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL‑FALAH INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2213 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL‑FALAH INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑, (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2213 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑, (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2213 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2213 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL‑FALAH INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑‑Tribunal had found that Assessing Officer being satisfied with the debit side of the trading account wrongly discarded the results when he had accepted the export sales as well‑‑‑Question whether in the given situation the declared trading results could be rejected pre‑dominently was a question of fact having no legal controversy between the parties and the same was declined by the High Court. The Lungla (Sylhet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 ref. ‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and only a question having some substance needs to be so referred. The Lungla (Sylhet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 rel.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J. ‑‑‑
This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and answer:‑‑‑ "Whether or not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified to direct the 1T0 to accept the declared trading results when he failed to communicate to the assessee, in his further communication on the other issues, that his explanation on debit side was not acceptable?"
2. The facts in brief are that the assessee an individual engaged himself in export/supply of sleeping bags. The Assessing Officer though accepted the declared export sales yet proceeded to apply a rate of 18%. Also certain additions on account of deemed income were made to frame assessment at total income of Rs.12,40,009 as against declared. by the assessee at Rs.1,49,
055. The learned first appellate authority allowed partial relief in case of deemed income, while rejection of account as well as application of rate of 18 was maintained. The learned Tribunal proceeded to infer that the Assessing Officer being satisfied with the debit side of the trading account wrongly discarded the results when he had accepted the export sales as well.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we will decline to answer the. question as framed and forwarded to this Court by the Tribunal. Firstly the question if in the given situation, the declared trading results could be rejected is pre‑dominently a question of fact. This Court, it hardly needs emphasis answers only a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal.
4. Secondly the issue involved does not raise a substantial legal controversy between the revenue and the assessee. In a recent opinion expressed on 14‑11‑2000 in C.T.R. 20 of 1991 re: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International Lahore, we have discussed the issue at length in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: The Lungla (Sylhet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR
872. The Hon'ble apex Court in that case held that every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and that only a question having some substance needs to be so. referred. The question as framed is neither of law nor has raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and, therefore, we will decline to answer.
5. Answer declined C. M. A. /M. A. K./C‑72/L Answer declined