2002 PLP 1865 (PTD)

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.

After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are not persuaded to entertain the following question of law which is stated to have arisen out of an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 27-10-2000:

"Whether on the facts, and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee being now taxpayer involving concealment of income of Rs.1,60,000 was entitled to the benefits of the Self-Assessment Scheme?"

2. The assessee .an individual and as, a new taxpayer returned his income from business at Rs.42,000 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer refused to extend the concession of the scheme to the assessee on the ground that business capital was not properly supported from the source. It was also noted that claimed liability of Rs.1,60,000 was not supported from any evidence on record and that the claimed tax credit under section 50(7E) exceeded a sum of Rs.100 when seen in the light of the electricity bills submitted alongwith the return.

3. On usual proceedings total income for the year was estimated at Rs.2,82,000 which included the said sum of Rs.1,60,000 added towards income with reference to the provisions of section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

4. Learned First Appellate Authority/A.A.C. of Income-tax, Faisalabad Range Faisalabad maintained the aforesaid addition under section 12(18). However, the estimation of sales at Rs.10,00,000 was found excessive and, therefore, reduced to Rs.750,000.

5. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal directed acceptance of return under Self-Assessment Scheme after holding that exclusion of the case of the assessee in view of C.B.R. Circular 16 of 1996 was not justified.

6. Thereafter, the prayer of the assessee for reference of .the aforesaid question to this Court under section 136(1) of the Ordinance, 1979 was declined on the ground that their order did not give raiset any substantive question of law.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we will agree with the learned Members of the Tribunal. In a number of cases we have expressed the opinion that generally the issue if a return qualified for acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme does not give rise a substantive question of law. In the present case, the return filed under Self-Assessment Scheme was denied the concession inter alia on the ground. that the assessee had been guilty of concealment to the extent of Rs.1,60,000 inasmuch as the claimed liability was not properly explained. The learned Tribunal for various reasons recorded in the order concluded that the assessee was entitled to the concession of Self Assessment Scheme. Therefore, the issue does not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and the assessee. In a recent opinion expressed on 14-11-2000 in C.T.R. No.20 of 1991 re: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International, Lahore we have discussed the issue at length in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: The Lungla (Sythet), Tea Co. Ltd. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle Dacca 1970 SCMR

872. The Hon'ble apex 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 ill .be so referred. The question as framed is neither of law nor has raised al substantial legal controversy between the parties and, therefore, we will refuse to entertain the question.

8. Dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C-156/L Reference dismissed.