2006 PLP 2208 (PTD)
Ch. OMAR NAZIR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2208 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. OMAR NAZIR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2208 (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 2006 PLP 2208 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2208 (PTD) (Ch. OMAR NAZIR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Baig for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 136
Questions of fact determined by Assessing Officer and affirmed by Appellate Tribunal
No question of law would arise in such a matter
High Court declined reference in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The Assessing Officer, made certain additions in the income of the assessee under section 13(l)(aa); the assessee being dissatisfied with the above, challenged the order before the AAC, Lahore, who set aside the same and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. In the re-assessment, apart from the addition as made in the original order, the Assessing Officer also curtailed the agricultural income of the assessee from Rs.6,000,00 to Rs.3,000,00; this was challenged by the assessee through an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who had deleted the addition out of the agricultural income and has also set aside the other addition. Being aggrieved, the department filed reference application before the Tribunal, which has been accepted and the order of the addition of Rs.3,000,00 out of the agricultural income has been affirmed.
2. In the factual backdrop, the following three questions have been propounded in this reference: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer, who has made the addition by turning down the explanation given by the applicant in a arbitrary manners and without bringing any material or evidence on record? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to confirm the addition made out of the agriculture income by the Assessing Officer which was not made in the original assessment order by accepting the evidence in the shape of Affidavit and NIC. Copy of the person to whom the trees were sold? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lahore Tribunal was justified to confirm the addition of Rs.300,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 13(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979? The first question has not been pressed; however, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the question, whether the addition has been rightly made or curtailed, are the questions of fact, which has been determined by the Assessing Officer correctly and affirmed by the Tribunal. We do not find that any question of law has arisen in the matter, rather as stated above, there are factual aspects, which have been conclusively adjudged by the forums below; this reference has no merit and is hereby declined. S.A.K./O-1/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference declined.