1984 PLP 61 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARAT (EAST), KARACHI Versus MESSRS CRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS LTD.KARACHI
| Citation | 1984 PLP 61 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARAT (EAST), KARACHI Versus MESSRS CRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS LTD.KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Income-tax (Correction of False Declarations) Regulation, [C. M. L. A. s] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 61 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax (Correction of False Declarations) Regulation, [C. M. L. A. s] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 61 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 61 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARAT (EAST), KARACHI Versus MESSRS CRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS LTD.KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Athar for Respondent
- Dates of hearing: 5th and 7th April, 1983.
- Mr. Hyder Ali Pirzada the learned counsel for the Department contended before us that in the present case there was no declaration filed by the Company under M. L. R. 32 for the years 1962-63 to 1964-65, and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal giving benefit of the said declaration to the respondent-Company was wholely without jurisdiction. However, from the order of the Tribunal we find that this was not the Department's case before the 'Appellate Tribunal. We will here reproduce the following passage from the order of the Tribunal to show that the case of Department before the Appellate Tribunal was that the appeal filed by the assessee against the charged years 1962-63 to 1964-65 should be dismissed as not maintainable as the excess income for these years was already declared by the assessee under M. L. R. 32: -
Headnotes / Summary
1Para. 32-Processing Commits considering case in detail and coming to conclusion that excess income aw declared by Directors and share holders of Company under Regulation, be accepted-Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also accepting book results shown by assesses is its return for relevant year in view of acceptance of-declarations of assessee by Committee-Order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held, legal in circumstances. Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
12 Qazi Muhammad Rizwan 51,429 13 Qazi Muhammad Farooq 51,429 14 Qazi Muhammad Tariq 51,429 15 Qazi Muhammad Imran 51,429 16 Zaibunisan 11,429 17 Badrunnisan 5,714 18 Shamim Akhtar 5,714 19 Tajwar Sultana 3,143 20 Shariefunnisan 3,143 21 Qamarunnisan 3,143 22 Naima 3,143 23 Mir Muhammad Ali 38,286 24 Mir Sadiq Ali 57,143 25 Mir Shahid Ali 35,686 26 Akhtar Begum 5,143 27 Razia Sultana 3,743 28 Ruksana 1,429 29 Maqbool Ahmed Baber 71,42 30 Suriya Baqi 42,157
2. The Directors and Sharcholders are from one family group and it has been claimed that the Excess Income is from the affairs of the Company Messrs Crescent Pak. Industries Limited. In the case of Director Qazi. Ghulam Jilani, another item of Excel' Income has been declared amounting to Rs. 50,000 from Saba Chemical which is a defunct concern. . The Directors and the Shareholders have also claimed that intangible additions should be allowed to them.
3. The Committee considered the care in detail and cam to the conclusion that the Excess Income 4x declared by the Director; mad Shareholders mentioned above should be accepted. (The underlining is by us.) There being, no intangible additions in the cans of these Directors and Shareholders arc such additions are allowed. It was claimed during the course of hearing that intangible additions made in the- case of the Company should be allowed against the Excess Income now declared. This claim could not be admitted as it is not admissible under Martial Law Regulation. Net Excess Income, therefore, stand at Rs. 56,50,000 for the assessment years for which they have been declared by various declarants to be divided equally in respect oil year for which they have been declared.
4. Excess Income of Rs. 7,00,000 pertaining to 1969-70 assessment year will be considered in the normal assessment for that year.
5. The pending assessment of the Company from 1965-66 to 1968-69 will be made by accepting the trading accounts and making additions, if any, in the profit and loss account only." From the reading of the above order it is abundantly clear that the Process ing Authority accepted the return filed under M. L. R. 32 by the shareholders of the Company as it is. The Tribunal accepted the book results shown by the assessee in its return of income for the years 1962-63 to 1964-65 in view of the order of Processing Authority accepting the excess declaration of income made by the assessee under M. L. R. 32 for the aforesaid period and we find no illegality in the order of Tribunal in doing so. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative but there will be no order as to costs. M. Z. M. Reference answered in the affirmative.