2001 PTD 2187 (PLP)
Messrs BANNU WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PTD 2187 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs BANNU WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PTD 2187 (PLP)?
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 PTD 2187 (PLP)?
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 PTD 2187 (PLP) (Messrs BANNU WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Absence of assessee at whose instance the questions were referred to the High Court‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑High Court was not bound to answer the questions in the absence of assessee at whose instance the questions had been referred‑‑Reference was disposed of by the High Court without answering the questions referred. Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 and M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188 rel. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following for our consideration and reply: (i) Whether in view of the provisions contained in section 135 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the learned Appellate Tribunal was competent to set aside an order passed under section 66‑A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal acted, in accordance with law by setting aside the order passed under section 66‑A by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax instead of cancelling the same? (iii) Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in law by holding that the applicant company which was the subsidiary of a Public Company whose. shares were the subject of dealings in a registered Stock Exchange, was not 'Public Company'?
2. Learned counsel for the revenue by relying upon a reported judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 states that in absence of the assessee at whose instance the aforesaid questions were referred no opinion can be expressed by this Court.
3. In the said judgment their Lordships interpreted the provisions of section 66(5) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 which are similar to section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance under which the aforesaid questions have been referred to us. In the view of their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further, that the hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued its case. Therefore, their Lordships found that they were not bound to answer the questions referred to it if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent. Reference in that respect was made to a decision of the Calcutta High ours in re: M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188.
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lordships in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above questions have been referred we will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly. C.M.A./M.A.K./B‑31/L Order accordingly.