2024 PLP 869 (PTD)
Mst. SADIA ISHFAQ Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER and 6 others
| Citation | 2024 PLP 869 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Shams Mehmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | Mst. SADIA ISHFAQ Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER and 6 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 869 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 869 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 869 (PTD) (Mst. SADIA ISHFAQ Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER and 6 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Osama Asif for Petitioner.
- Syed Zain ul Aabedin Bukhari for Respondent/FBR.
- 4. The provisions of section 216 (3)(m) of the Ordinance to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 stipulate that the bar contained in section 216(1) shall not be applicable to proceedings pending in a civil court in which the Federal Government or any income tax authority is a party which relates to any matter arising out of any proceedings under this Ordinance. This provision by its terms does not support the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for invoking section 216 of the Ordinance to deny the petitioner the tax returns of her father. It is apparent from the provision that the suit or proceedings pending in the civil court must relate to a matter arising out of any proceedings under the Ordinance. The petitioner, however, seeks copies of the tax returns of her deceased father to ascertain the properties, movable and immovable left by him. She cannot simply file a suit without mentioning the properties to which she is entitled on account of inheritance.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.216(1) & 216 (3)(m)
Information of a taxpayer, disclosure of
Scope
Legal representative of deceased taxpayer, rights of
Daughter sought, from the concerned Commissioner Inland Revenue, the copies of tax returns of her deceased father in order to ascertain her share from the properties left by him, which request was rejected
Argument of the Commissioner, relying on S. 216(3)(m) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001'), was that the information required by the petitioner/daughter could not be provided to her as she had to approach the civil court and through its processes the Commissioner might provide the necessary tax returns in evidence before the Civil Court
Provisions of S. 216(3)(m) of the Ordinance, 2001 stipulated that the bar contained in S.216(1) of the Ordinance, 2001 shall not be applicable to proceedings pending in a Civil Court in which the Federal Government or any income tax authority is a party relating to any matter arising out of any proceedings under the Ordinance, 2001
Said provision by its terms does not support the reasons mentioned in the impugned order to deny the petitioner the tax returns of her father
It is apparent from the said provision that the suit or proceedings pending in the Civil Court must relate to a matter arising out of any proceedings under the Ordinance, 2001
Petitioner had sought seeks copies of the tax returns of her deceased father to ascertain the (movable and immovable) properties left by him ; she could not simply file a suit without mentioning the properties to which she was entitled on account of inheritance
Even otherwise, any dispute regarding the tax affairs of the deceased after his death shall have to be dealt with by his legal representatives
Petitioner being one of the legal representatives of the deceased was entitled to obtain the information from the tax returns to lay claim on her legal entitlement under the Islamic law of inheritance
High Court viewed that S. 216 of the Ordinance, 2001 did not place any bar on legal representative(s) of a deceased taxpayer from obtaining the copies of his / her tax returns
High Court set-aside impugned order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue and directed him to provide necessary information / tax returns of the deceased father of the petitioner to the petitioner
Constitutional petition filed by the daughter of deceased taxpayer, was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.
This writ petition calls into question order dated 11.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is the daughter of Haji Ghulam Rasool who passed away on 16.02.2023. In order to protect her share in the estate of late Haji Ghulam Rasool to which she is entitled under the Islamic Law, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 seeking copies of his tax returns in order to ascertain the properties left behind by his late father. On account of inaction of respondent No.2, the petitioner approached this Court through Writ Petition No.73688 of 2023 which was disposed of on 07.11.2023 by remitting it to the Director General of Federal Board of Revenue for passing decision thereon. Respondent No.2 has passed the order on 11.03.2023 by rejecting the request of the petitioner in view of the provisions contained in section 216 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) which prohibits the disclosure of information of a taxpayer.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has once again placed reliance on section 216(3)(m) of the Ordinance to state that the information required by the petitioner cannot be provided to her and that she has to approach the civil court and through its processes respondent No.2 may provide the necessary tax returns in evidence.
4. The provisions of section 216 (3)(m) of the Ordinance to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 stipulate that the bar contained in section 216(1) shall not be applicable to proceedings pending in a civil court in which the Federal Government or any income tax authority is a party which relates to any matter arising out of any proceedings under this Ordinance. This provision by its terms does not support the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for invoking section 216 of the Ordinance to deny the petitioner the tax returns of her father. It is apparent from the provision that the suit or proceedings pending in the civil court must relate to a matter arising out of any proceedings under the Ordinance. The petitioner, however, seeks copies of the tax returns of her deceased father to ascertain the properties, movable and immovable left by him. She cannot simply file a suit without mentioning the properties to which she is entitled on account of inheritance.
5. The argument put forward by respondent No.2 is otherwise devoid of any merit if one considers that any dispute regarding the tax affairs of Haji Ghulam Rasool after his death shall have to be dealt with by his legal representatives. The petitioner being one of the legal representatives of Haji Ghulam Rasool is entitled to obtain the information from the tax returns to lay claim on her legal entitlement under the Islamic Law of Inheritance. In the opinion of this Court, section 216 does not place any bar on legal representative(s) of a deceased taxpayer from obtaining the copies of his/her tax returns.
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 11.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to provide all the necessary information/tax returns of Haji Ghulam Rasool (Late) to the petitioner forthwith. MQ/S-18/L Petition allowed.