2007 PLP 1184 (PTD)
MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AUDIT, LAHORE
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1184 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AUDIT, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1184 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1184 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1184 (PTD) (MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AUDIT, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22(9), 122(1) & 137(2)
S.R.O. 633(I), dated 14-9-2002
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 Constitutional petition
Deduction for depreciation, computation for
Assessee had prayed that impugned notice issued under S.22(9), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 along with superstructure built thereon by way of order passed under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, be declared illegal
Assessee also prayed to restrain the Authority from proceeding to effect recovery of tax on basis of demand notice issued under S.137(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 till the decision of constitutional petition
Petitioner had stated that issue raised in the petition, had already stood resolved by judgment of the High Court reported as 2005 PTD 1621
Counsel for Revenue, did not dispute that per ratio in said judgment, S.R.O. 633(I)/2002 dated 14-9-2002 was declared to be not a valid piece of Legislation
During the period in which said S.R.O. remained in force, no legally valid action under it could be initiated under S.122 in respect of assessments already completed under repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
For the various reasons stated in the said reported judgment of High Court, impugned notice and amended assessment order recorded under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Kashmir Edible Oil Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 1621 rel.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
In this Constitutional petition following prayer has been made:-- "It is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased:-- (1) To declare that the impugned notice, dated 31-3-2005 issued under section 22(9) along with its superstructure built thereon by way of order, dated 28-5-2005, passed under section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, are illegal, without lawful jurisdiction and of no legal effect. (2) To restrain the respondent from proceeding to effect recovery of tax on the basis of demand notice, dated 28-5-2005 issued under section 137(2) of the Income Tax -Ordinance 2001, for Rs.1,70,316 till the decision of this petition."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in this petition already stands resolved by a judgment of this Court in re: Kashmir Edible Oil Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 1621 which already stands approved by the (sic).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue does not dispute that per ratio settled in the above judgment S.R.O. 633(I)/2002, dated 14-9-2002 was not a valid piece of legislation. Therefore, during the period in which it statedly remained in force from 1-7-2002 to 1-7-2003 no legally valid action under it could be initiated under section 122 (Amendment of assessment) in respect of the assessments already completed under the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. I will also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two 'assessments earlier completed in respect of the petitioner for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 could be reopened under section 65 or 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 respectively till 30-6-2003 and 30-6-2004 only while the impugned show-cause notice was issued on 31-3-2005.
4. For the various reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment of this Court the impugned notice, dated 31-31.2005 and the amended assessment order, dated 28-5-2005 recorded under section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are declared to be illegal and without lawful jurisdiction.
5. Petition accepted. H.B.T./M-100/L Petition accepted.