2001 PLP 2207 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus JAVED GHANI
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2207 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus JAVED GHANI |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2207 (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 2001 PLP 2207 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2207 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus JAVED GHANI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 91(4‑A) & 136‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Amendment by Finance Act, 1997‑‑ Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question whether the Tribunal was justified to delete .the penalty on the ground that assessment on the basis of which it was imposed was modified‑‑‑Where an assessment was modified in appeal, the issuance of a fresh demand notice consequent upon the appellate order was necessary‑‑‑If the original assessment was modified in appeal the penalty already imposed did not remain in the field‑‑‑Findings were recorded in the face of the provision of S.91 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as originally framed and before insertion of subsection (4‑A) was made in. S.91 by Finance Act, 1997‑‑‑Penalty imposed being much earlier in time before the said addition of subsection (4‑A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the A.A.C. deleting the penalty imposed under S.91 on the ground that assessment/demand in original had been modified in appeal. CIT v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal PLD 1976 Lah. 761 and CIT v. Good Luck Trading Company, Lahore C. T. R: No. 105 of 1993 rel. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑--This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply: "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the A.A.C. deleting the penalty imposed under section 91 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that assessment/demand in original has been modified in appeal.
2. According to the statement of the case after framing assessment in respect of the assessee, an individual, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.16,115 under section 91 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. On appeal penalty so imposed was deleted on the ground that assessment on the basis of which it was imposed was modified. The learned Tribunal maintained the findings by relying upon a judgment of this Court in re: CIT v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal PLD 1976 Lah. 761.
3. In a recent opinion while disposing of C. T. R. No. 105 of 1993 re: CIT v. Good. Luck Trading Company Lahore, we have found that till the amendment brought about in section 91 whereby subsection (4‑A) was inserted therein the ratio settled by this Court in the aforesaid case re: CIT v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal (Supra) held the field. It will be seen that in the aforesaid judgment of this Court expressed the view that where an assessment was modified in appeal, the issuance of afresh demand notice consequent upon the appellate order was necessary. Also that where the original assessment was modified in appeal the penalty already imposed did not remain in the field. As observed earlier these findings were recorded in the face of the provisions of section 91 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as originally framed and before the aforesaid sub section (4‑A) was introduced to existing provision of section 91 by way of the Finance Act, 1997.
4. Since the penalty in this case was imposed much earlier to the aforesaid amendment, the principle settled by this Court squarely covers the same.
5. That being so our answer to the question is in the affirmative. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑68/L Question answered.