2001 PLP 2179 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL-TARIQ CONSTRUCTION CO., LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2179 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL-TARIQ CONSTRUCTION CO., LAHORE |
| 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 2001 PLP 2179 (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 2001 PLP 2179 (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 2179 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE Versus AL-TARIQ CONSTRUCTION CO., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Allegation of hick of interest against Revenue made by the Tribunal did not find support from any material on the record‑‑‑Department was non‑suited on general remarks despite the fact that it was properly represented by the Departmental Representative while no one for the respondent‑ assessee appeared‑‑‑Departmental representative had not failed to assist or to reply the queries which the Tribunal had in mind‑‑ Tribunal, held, was not justified in dismissing the appeal on account of the alleged indifference or lack of interest by the Revenue. C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165 and Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. C. I. T. and another 2000 PTD 2903 ref. ‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Non‑availability of relevant record before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was of no Significance unless the Tribunal had required its production to find reply to a specific query.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑Following question of law has been framed and forwarded by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for our consideration and reply:‑‑‑ Question of Law. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified to dismiss the appeal for indifference and lack of interest?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we will agree that the issue in hand already stands answered in detail by us in C.T.R. No.89 of 1993 Re: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Al‑Muslim Ice Factory, Lahore.
3. In that case, we repeated our opinion which was earlier expressed in Re: C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165 and Re: Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CIT and another 2000 PTD 2903. In both judgments, we considered the nature of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules which were resorted to in this case for dismissal of appeal. It was also noted that the opinion' of the Tribunal with regard to alleged lack of interest by the Revenue did not find support from any material on the record. Same appears to be the situation in the present case as well: We have also noted that the department was non‑suited on general remarks despite the fact that it was properly represented by the D.R. while no one for the respondent‑assessee appeared. Also it is not the complaint of the Tribunal that the learned D.R. failed to assist or to reply the queries which the learned judicial member had in their mind. The non‑availability of record before, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also of no significance unless the Tribunal had required its production to find reply to a specific query.
4. Therefore, for the various reasons recorded in the aforesaid opinion as also the reported judgments of this Court, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on account of the alleged indifference or lack of interest, by the Revenue.
5. Answered accordingly. M.B.A./C‑76/L Order accordingly.