2002 PLP 2802 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs NEW MEHBOOB FINISHING AND BLEACHING PLANT, SAMUNDRI ROAD, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2802 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs NEW MEHBOOB FINISHING AND BLEACHING PLANT, SAMUNDRI ROAD, FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2802 (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 2002 PLP 2802 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2802 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs NEW MEHBOOB FINISHING AND BLEACHING PLANT, SAMUNDRI ROAD, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.136(2) & 62
Appeal before High Court
Maintainability- Self -Assessment Scheme
Dispute was with regard to re-opening of case of the assessee under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-- Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided the matter in favour of assessee by holding that its case could not be selected for total audit
If return filed by assessee qualified for acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme, the same was a question of fact-- Such question did not involve or raise substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and assessee
Every question of lam need not to be referred to High Court and only a question having some substance needed to be so referred
Question framed by the Revenue was neither of law nor had raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties, High Court declined to answer the question in circumstances. C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 fol. The Lungla (Sylhet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -tax, Dacca Circle Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 ref. Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
The assessee-respondent an AOP filed a return of its income under Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1997-98. On selection of its case for total audit the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame an assessment under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
2. The learned First Appellate Authority CIT (Appeals) for various reasons detailed in the body of the order maintained the selection of the case of the assessee for process under normal law.
3. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal Found in favour of the assessee by holding that its case could not be selected for total audit.
4. Thereafter, the prayer of the assessee for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of their order was refused by the Tribunal:- (i) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified to direct acceptance of assess's return under Self-Assessment Scheme? (ii) Whether decision of the learned Tribunal is based on misreading of Circular No. 12 of 1997 dated 17-9-1997?
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue at pre-admission stage, we are not inclined to entertain this reference application. In C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 this Court concluded that the issue if a return tiled by all assessee qualified for acceptance under self- assessment scheme was necessarily a question of fact. Further that such questions did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between A the Revenue and the assessee. In reaching that conclusion we relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax Dacca Circle Dacca (1970 SCMR 872).
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case held that every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be so referred. The question as framed, in view of the reasons recorded in C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 we will hold that is neither of law nor has raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and, therefore, we will decline to answer.
7. Answer declined. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C-174/L Answer declined.