1985 PLP 411 (PTD)

S. 59 ‑ Self‑Assessment Scheme, paras. 2, 5 (b) & 6‑‑Self‑Assessment‑Qualifications‑Detailed scrutiny‑Requirements for claiming immunity from‑Failure to supply particulars with return or in compliance with notice from I. T. O.‑Effect‑Assessee not fulfilling requirements of para 2 of Self‑Assessment Scheme regarding furnishing particulars/documents within one month from date of service of notice from I.‑T. O. ‑ Case of assessee can be selected for detailed scrutiny‑Even when particulars have been supplied, his case can be selected for detailed scrutiny by Regional Commissioner of Income‑tax‑ Assessee not filing documents along with return as required under para. 2 of Scheme, immunity under para 6, held, not available to such assessee. (b) Income‑tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑ ‑‑‑S. 59 and Self‑Assessment Scheme, para 2 ‑Provisional Constitu tion Order(1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Assessee not complying with notice of I. T. O. within prescribed time‑Delay not condoned by I. T. O. Mere refusal to condone delay, held, could not be ground for invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Sabihuddin for Petitioner SALEEM AKHTAR, J. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and an assessee of Income‑tax. On Ist August, 1984 petitioner filed its Income‑tax Return for the assessment year 1984‑85 and claimed immunity in terms of para. 6 of the Self‑Assessment Scheme. In October 1984 the res pondent No. 1 served a notice dated 25th September 1984 on the petitioner requiring it to submit the balance‑sheet statement of partner's account, partner's bank statement and partner's wealth statement within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. By his letter dated 3rd November 1984 the petitioner submitted the balance‑sheet alongwith partnership's capital account. The respondent No. 1 issued a show‑cause notice dated 15th November 1984 intimating the petitioner that as necessary documents required$ by the notice were not submitted within the stipulated period of one month, the I. T. O. intended to take up the case for detailed scrutiny under para 5 (b) of the Scheme. The petitioner has challenged this action of then respondent No. 1 as illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. Mr. Sabihuddin the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of para. 6 of Self‑Assessment Scheme 1984‑85, the petitioner's case is entitled to immunity and cannot be selected for detailed scrutiny. According to the learned counsel as the petitioner is entitled to immunity no action can be taken against it. To properly appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to various provisions of the Scheme issued under section 59 of the Income‑tax Ordinance, 1979. Para. 1 of the Scheme provides that all returns filed for assessment year 1984‑85 shall be Self‑Assessment returns provided they did not carry the disqualification listed in para. 4 and subject to condi tion mentioned in para. 1. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to be assessed under the Self‑Assessment Scheme. Para. 2 of the Scheme mentions the requirements of the return and provides that alongwith the return of income, statements, accounts, details and documents mentioned in it shall be filed by the assessee. Therefore when the return is filed it should be accompanied by such documents, which are mentioned therein. Para 3 relates to lump .sum addition and is not relevant. Para. 4 specifies five categories of cases which shall not qualify for processing under the Self‑Assessment Scheme; one of which being the case selected for de tailed scrutiny by the Board as specified in para. 5. Para 5 specifies such class of cases, which would be selected for detailed scrutiny. In the present case para 5 (b) is attracted which reads as follows. 5 (b) Cases where the requirements of the return, as specified in para. 2 are not fulfilled and the tax‑payer fails to provide such particulars/documents within one month of the date of service of a letter from the Income‑tax Officer requisitioning them, would be eligible for being taken up for detailed scrutiny. Provided that the Regional Commissioners may pick up even those cases where tax‑payers furnish the necessary particulars/documents after filing the return.' It therefore follows that if an assessee does not fulfill the requirements of para. 2 and on notice being served the required documents are not furnished within one month from the date of service of notice from the Income‑tax Officer then his case can be selected for detailed scrutiny. It is also provided that even where the particulars have been furnished and documents have been filed the Regional Commissioner may select cases for detailed scrutiny. It seems clear that the Income‑tax Officer has the jurisdiction to select cases for detailed scrutiny provided two conditions are satisfied: (1) The assessee has not filed along with his return such documents/particulars as required by para. 2 of the Scheme, and (2) on notice being served by the Income‑tax Officer on the assessee f to furnish such particulars/documents, he fails to furnish the same within 30 days of the service of notice. The question of granting immunity under para 6 to the assessee will only arise where the assessee has filed return in due compliance with the provision of paragraphs 2. In the absence of non‑compliance it will not be a proper return according to law and will not be entitled for immunity. According to Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed para. 6 is a clog on the power of the Income‑tax Officer to select the case for detailed scrutiny. Such clog can be pressed in service if it is shown disqualified under para. 4 and does not fall under para. 5. Having cross ed all these barriers as provided by preceding paragraphs the assessee can claim immunity under para. 6. Admittedly the petitioner had not filed all the documents/particulars with the return and even on service of notice such documents/particulars were not supplied within 30 days thereof. The petitioner has given reasons for non‑compliance within 30 days but it seems that the respondent No. 1 has not considered it fit to condone the delay. Mere refusal to condone the delay cannot be a ground for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. For these reasons the petition is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Petition dismissed in limine.