1985 PLP 188 (PTD)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus ABDULLAH HABIB
| Citation | 1985 PLP 188 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Ali Nawaz Budhani, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus ABDULLAH HABIB |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 188 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 188 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Ali Nawaz Budhani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 188 (PTD) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, (WEST ZONE), KARACHI Versus ABDULLAH HABIB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 30th November 1983.'
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.5(8) & 23(2)‑‑Income‑tax Rules, 1922, r. 46‑‑C.B.R. Instructions on subject of self‑assessment‑‑Return of income under self‑assessment scheme‑‑Claim not to be rejected unless it was a case of concealment and prior approval of I . A . C . was obtained by I.. T .O. before proceeding under normal law notwithstanding powers of I . T .O . under r. 46 of Income‑tax Rules, 1922‑‑Section 5(8) of Act, held, directed all officers and persons employed in execution of Act that they should observe and follow orders, instructions and directions of Central Board of Revenue. Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Respondent (absent)
Judgment & Decree
Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Respondent (absent) Date of hearing: 30th November 1983.' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ., J.‑‑ The following question has been referred by the, Commissioner of Income‑tax:‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income‑tax Officer was not justified in making regular assess ment?"
2. The facts are that the respondent is retail sale dealer of cloth at Hyderabad. He filed Return of Income under Self‑Assessment Scheme showing Rs. 7,750 as net income for assessment year 1970‑
71. The I.T.O. did not proceed to assess the respondent on the basis of his Return , but issued notice under section 23(2) and estimated his net income at Rs.13,000 on the estimated sale at Rs.1,00,000 against the sale of Rs.65,000 shown by respondent. The I.T.A. Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent holding that the Income‑tax Officer was restricted in his power by instructions issued by C . B . R . which were to the effect that the claim to self assessment will not be thrown out unless it is a case of concealment of income and that prior approval of the I . A . C . would be taken by the I . T .O . before proceeding under normal law. The Tribunal had considered the position that the proviso to Rule 46 of the Income‑tax Rules did empower the I.T.O. to complete the assessment under normal law if he chose to do so.
3. We do not find anything wrong in the order of the appellate Tribunal, which was based on the instructions issued by the C.B.R. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in this view particularly in view of the fact that section 5(8) of the Income‑tax Act directs all officers) and persons employed in the execution of Income‑tax Act that they, shall observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the) Central Board of Revenue. It was of urged that such instructions had not been issued by the C . B . R Consequently, the answer of the question referred to us is in the affirmative. M . B . A Question answered in affirmative.