2001 PTD 2161 (PLP)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus PUNJAB COOKING OIL LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PTD 2161 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus PUNJAB COOKING OIL LTD., LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PTD 2161 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PTD 2161 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim 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: 2001 PTD 2161 (PLP) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE Versus PUNJAB COOKING OIL LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13(1)(d)‑‑‑Deemed income‑‑‑Addition‑‑‑Two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. for making additions to the declared income of the assessee were necessary at the relevant time. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent, NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. The following questions of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑ "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal justified in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) by deleting the addition of Rs.5,27,000 which was made under section 13(1)(d) of the Ordinance?"
2. The facts in brief are that respondent is a manufacturer of cooking oil, during the period relevant to the assessment year, 1988‑89, purchased a piece of land declared at Rs.2,063 per kanal. The Assessing Officer finding the same to have been understated proceeded to estimate it at Rs.33,000 per kanal. In this manner an amount of Rs.5,27,000 was added towards income under clause (d) subsection (1) of section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The learned first appellate authority by relying upon a judgment of the Tribunal found that the addition was made without adopting the required procedure under section 13 of the‑ Ordinance which included obtaining of two statutory approvals of the I.A.C. The learned Tribunal, on further appeal, upheld the findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the answer to the proposed question has to be in the negative. In a recent judgment a Division Bench of Karachi High Court in re: CIT v. Muhammad Kasim (2000 PTD 280) observed that the comparable provision of section 4(2‑D) of the Act postulated two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. for making additions to the declared incomes.
4. Being in respectful agreement with the finding recorded by our learned brothers we hold that the two statutory approvals at the relevant time were necessary for making the impugned addition of deemed income.
5. Answered accordingly. M.B.A./C‑69/L Answered accordingly.