2003 PLP 1842 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONCERN (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1842 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONCERN (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1842 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1842 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1842 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONCERN (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 62
Re-opening of assessment
Cancellation of re-assessment orders by Appellate Authority and Tribunal
Appellate Authority and Tribunal had found as a fact that there was no justifiable reason available with Assessing Officer to re-open assessments
Kind of definite information and basis for re-opening taken by Assessing Officer having been disapproved by both appellate forums, there was no question of setting aside of assessments
Issue that due to lack of consideration of evidence available on record, Tribunal ought to have set aside assessments instead of cancelling them did not arise at all
High Court declined to entertain questions framed for consideration and dismissed appeal in limine.
Judgment & Decree
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the cancellation of assessments? (ii) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant the setting aside of assessment instead of its cancellation? (iii) Whether a procedural deficiency in an assessment can justify cancellation of the assessment, thus depriving the State its otherwise due share of tax?
2. The assessee returned a loss for the assessment year 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively at Rs.1,43,554, 1,69,315 and 1,97,
423. Instead the assessments, were framed under section 62 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 respectively at Rs.2,00,981, 47,692 and 1,21,520.
3. Subsequently these assessments were reopened on the ground that the assessee had concealed certain receipts in the three years involved. On usual proceedings through a consolidated order, dated 2-12-1993 the Assessing Officer framed re-assessments respectively at Rs.2,55,918, 18,713 (loss) and 42,594 (loss).
4. Learned First Appellate Authority on the authority of a certificate produced from Messrs Rubbrex Road Wheel Ltd. concluded that no business was done by them with the appellant in the assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90. Also that in the assessment year 1989-90 total purchases were made by 'them from the assessee at Rs.16,39,
922. However, the Assessing Officer never bothered to verify the authenticity of the said certificate. Accordingly the re-assessment framed after re opening in the three years involved were cancelled.
5. On department appeal the learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order maintained the cancellation of assessments for similar reasons as earlier weighed with the First Appellate Authority.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that none of the three questions as reproduced above arise out of the impugned order. The issue if lack of consideration of a piece of evidence available on record, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the assessment orders instead of cancelling them does not arise at all. The reason simply being that the learned First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal found as a fact that there was no justifiable reason available with the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessments. The kind of definite information and the basis for re-opening taken by the Assessing Officer having been disapproved both by the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, there was no question of setting aside of the assessments.
7. Therefore none of three questions as proposed can be entertained for consideration.
8. Dismissed in limine. S.A.K./C-213/L Appeals dismissed.