2004 PLP 1978 (PTD)
Messrs S. M. MOHSIN Versus C.I.T. COMPANIES 1, LAHORE
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1978 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs S. M. MOHSIN Versus C.I.T. COMPANIES 1, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1978 (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 2004 PLP 1978 (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: 2004 PLP 1978 (PTD) (Messrs S. M. MOHSIN Versus C.I.T. COMPANIES 1, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Party at whose instance questions of law were referred, if remained absent, then High Court would not be bound to answer such questions‑‑‑Principles. The obligations of High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it is contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further the hearing of case cannot be made, unless the party at whose instance the questions have been referred to the Court was present and argued its case. Therefore, the High Court is not bound to answer the questions referred to, it, if the party at whose instance the questions have been referred, remained absent. Dada Bhai H. Mama and Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 and M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188) fol.
Judgment & Decree
Dada Bhai H. Mama and Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 and M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188) fol. Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent Date of hearing: 16th April, 2001. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following questions for our consideration and reply:‑‑ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the action of the imposition of penalty under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, especially when it refused to believe the evidence produced in‑shape of statement made under section 148 and affidavit filed in support of the Estate .of, the late mother of the petitioner and loan advances.
2. Learned counsel for the Revenue by relying upon a report judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Dada Bhai H. Mama and Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 states that in absence of the assessee at whose instance the aforesaid questions were referred, no opinion cart be expressed by this Court.
3. In the said judgment their Lordships interpreted the provisions of section 66(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which are similar to section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance under which the aforesaid questions have been referred to us. In the view of their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further that the hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued its case. Therefore, their Lordships found that they were not bound to answer the questions referred to it if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent. Reference in that respect was made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in re: M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR, 188).
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lordships in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above questions have been referred, we will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly. S.A.K./S‑86/L Answer refused.