1993 PLP 265 (PTD)
IMTIAZ RAFI BUTT Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
| Citation | 1993 PLP 265 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | IMTIAZ RAFI BUTT Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 265 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 265 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 265 (PTD) (IMTIAZ RAFI BUTT Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1993. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,' 1973 assails the validity of the notices issued by the respondent under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the assessment for the relevant years had been finalised, the same had attained finality and could not be re-opened by the respondent merely on the basis of different view of the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has however raised an objection that the petition is premature inasmuch as no order to the detriment of the petitioner has yet been passed.
3. From the respective contentions and facts stated by them, it is apparent that the petitioner has already sent his replies to the notices under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, wherein he had objected to the reopening of the cases on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This jurisdictional objection has not yet been decided.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that before proceeding further on merits of the case, the respondent shall decide the preliminary objection as to his jurisdiction and final order in the proceedings shall not be passed till expiry of 10 days from date when the order passed on jurisdictional issue is announced/communicated to the petitioner. In view of this undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition and is disposed of as having been withdrawn with no order as to costs. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach this Court, if need so arises. M.BA./I-63/L Order accordingly.