2002 PLP 2546 (PTD)
Messrs ILYAS FOUNDRY WORKS, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE, LAHORE
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2546 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ILYAS FOUNDRY WORKS, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2546 (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 2546 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem 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: 2002 PLP 2546 (PTD) (Messrs ILYAS FOUNDRY WORKS, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.136
Effect
In absence of assessee at whose instance the questions had been referred, High Court declined to answer the questions
Reference was disposed of accordingly. 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 (1995) 27 ITR 188 fol. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
The Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following questions for our consideration and reply: (i) Whether any established yard stick/principle has been adopted in estimating sales so exorbitant, if not, on what basis sales have been estimated? (ii) Whether Income-tax Tribunal was justified in law in segregating the part of statement of assessee qua G.P. rates which were on higher side and favourable to Department and rejecting the order part qua the sales declared by assessee and favourable to him being an act contrary to law, equity and principles of judicial procedure?
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 Court in Re: M.M Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1995) 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. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I-122/L Answer to reference declined