2001 PLP 2312 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus Messrs EAST PAKISTAN CHROME, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2312 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus Messrs EAST PAKISTAN CHROME, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2312 (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 2001 PLP 2312 (PTD)?
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 PLP 2312 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE Versus Messrs EAST PAKISTAN CHROME, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.13(1)(d) & 136‑‑‑Addition‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Addition was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of procedural shortcomings on account of two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. under S.13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Deletion of addition by the Appellate Tribunal was approved by the High Court. Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Muhammad Kasim 2000 PTD 280 rel. Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. The following. question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of the CIT(A) whereby addition of Rs.7,00,000 and 10,00,000 made under section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was deleted on the basis of procedural shortcomings, if any, when the basic requirement to assume the jurisdiction by the I.T.O. had been fulfilled?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we will readily A agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the issue in hand already stands determined in favour of the assessee in CIT No.324 of 1991 re: CIT v. Dr. Mrs. S.P. Niazi, Professor Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore. While finding for the assessee we agreed with the view earlier expressed by a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Muhammad Kasim 2000 PTD
280. In that case it was observed that parallel provisions of section 4(2‑D) of the late Act postulated two separate and independent approvals of the I.A.C. for making additions to the declared incomes.
3. That being so far the reasons recorded in the aforesaid C.T.R. No.324 of 1991 we will return an affirmative answer to the question. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑78/L Reference answered.