1990SCMR1349 (PLP)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1349 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax Act (XI of 19221‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1349 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax Act (XI of 19221‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1349 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1349 (PLP) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate and M. Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑9‑1977 in P.T.R. 317 of 1972), ‑‑‑‑S.13, first proviso‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Assessment made by Income‑tax Officer under first proviso to S.13 of the Act was upheld by Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑High Court in reference, however, differed with the view taken by the Income‑tax forums‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Department's contention was that assessment made by Income‑tax Officer was not arbitrary because it had been made after a careful scrutiny of accounts submitted in accordance with legal requirements, and that the view taken by the High Court was contrary to the view taken by Supreme Court in Miss Assi's case reported as P L D 1979 S C 949 and the judgments of Privy Council reported as A I R 1937 P C 133‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions raised by Department. Miss Assi v. Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal P L D 1979 S C 949 and Commissioner of Income‑tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai, Shop. Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi A I R 1937 P C 133 rel.
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑‑‑The dispute in this petition for leave relates to the accounts submitted by the respondent for the assessment year 1966‑
67. The Income‑tax Officer scrutinised the accounts submitted in the light of the purchases of raw material by the respondent, the ratio of profits shown by the respondent in earlier years, etc., and on what appears to be a careful examination of the material he reached the conclusion that the accounts submitted were not fit to be accepted, therefore, he added Rs.50,000 to the respondent's trading account by his order dated 30‑6‑1971. The respondent challenged this order in a direct appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal but as the appeal was dismissed it filed an application under section 66(1) of the Income‑tax Act in the Lahore High Court in which it raised two questions. The first question was whether the assessment made by the Income‑tax Officer was "violative of the first proviso to section 13 of the Income‑tax Act 1922 for want of computation of an income on any basis". And the second question was whether there was any material before the Tribunal for rejecting the accounts submitted by the respondent. On the basis of a judgment of their own High Court in Rajput Metal Works Gujranwala v. Commissioner of Income‑tax Rawalpindi (1976) 33 Tax., the learned Judges, who heard the respondent's reference held:‑‑ "In view of the law so laid down, we conclude that the Income‑tax Officer in adding and the Tribunal in maintaining the addition of a sum of Rs.50,000 "for low rate of profit, excessive wastage and low production" violated the first proviso to section 13 of the Income‑tax Act and we answer the question accordingly. In view of such an answer the reasons already given, we would not, for the present, like to deal with the second question ...." Hence this petition for leave. Mr. Ilyas Khan submitted that the assessment made by the Income‑tax Officer was not arbitrary, because it had been made after a careful scrutiny of the accounts submitted together with the earlier and on law his submission was that accounts of the respondent the view taken in the Rajput Metal Works Gujranwala's case was inconsistent with the law declared by us in Miss Assi v. Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal PLD 1979 SC 949 and the judgment of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income‑tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai, Shop, Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi A I R 1937 P C
133. As these submissions require examination, we grant leave. The appeal will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. AA./C‑60/S Leave granted.