2002 PLP 2829 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs GULSHAN TRADING CO., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2829 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs GULSHAN TRADING CO., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2829 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2829 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2829 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD Versus Messrs GULSHAN TRADING CO., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 59, 62 & 136(2)
Selection of case for total audit
Appellate Authority and Tribunal found that case of assessee could not be selected for total audit
Validity-- Return filed by an assessee, whether qualified for acceptance under self- assessment scheme, was necessarily a question of fact
Such .question did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between revenue and assessee
High Court declined to answer the reference. C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 and The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 fol.
S. 136
Scope
Every question of law need not be referred to High Court
Only a question having some substance need be so referred. The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 fol. Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
The assessee-respondent an AOP filed a return of its income under self-assessment scheme for the assessment year 1994-95. On selection of its case for total audit the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame an assessment under section 62 of the Income Tax, Ordinance; 1979.
2. The learned First Appellate Authority/CIT (Appeals) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration of the claim of the assessee that his case could not be plucked out of the self-assessment scheme.
3. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal found in favour of the assessee by holding that its case could not be selected for total audit.
4. Thereafter, the prayer of the Revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of their order was refused by the Tribunal:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to direct acceptance of assessee's return under Self-Assessment Scheme?"
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue at pre admission stage, we are not inclined to entertain this reference application. In C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 this Court concluded that the issue if a return filed by an assessee qualified for acceptance under self- assessment scheme was necessarily a question of fact. Further that such question did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and the assessee. In reaching that conclusion we relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: The Lungla (Sylhet); Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca (1970 SCMR 872).
6. 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 be so referred. The question as framed, in view of the reasons recorded in C.T.R. No.192 of 1997 we will hold that is neither of law nor has raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and, therefore, we will decline to answer.
7. Answer declined. S.A.K./C-172/L Reference declined.