2007 PLP 2380 (PTD)
Messrs ACCORD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2380 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ACCORD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2380 (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 2007 PLP 2380 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2380 (PTD) (Messrs ACCORD TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Appellant.
- Shahid Jamil for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 12(18), 62 & 136
Books of accounts of the Appellant/Company had revealed that one Director of the Company had advanced a cash loan for the purchase of car
Notices under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were issued
Reply to said notices having been found unsatisfactory, said amount of cash loan was assessed as income of the company in terms of S.12(18) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Case of appellant/assessee was that car was purchased by the Director for the Company
No reliable evidence having been produced in that behalf, said plea of assessee was rejected
Alternative plea was taken that Director of the Company owned an amount of Rs.22.00 million to the company and that said car was transferred as part payment of said loan
No evidence in support of the aforesaid contention having been produced, the plea was rejected
Appellant was attempting to rekindle factual controversy which was not possible in jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12-10-1999.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that with reference to the years 1994-95 allegedly the examination of the Books of Accounts of the appellant-Company revealed that a Director of the Company had advanced a cash loan of Rs.15,50,0007 for the purchase of a car. Notices under section 62 of the Ordinance were issued. The reply was found unsatisfactory and in terms of section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 said amount of cash loan was assessed as income of the Company. The appellant challenged the same and appeal in this behalf was eventually dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. It was the case of the assessee-appellant that in fact the car was purchased by the said Director for the Company. However, since no reliable evidence in this behalf was produced, this plea was rejected as is specifically mentioned in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. An alternative plea was taken that the said Director owed an amount of Rs.22.00 million to the Company and the said car was transferred as part payment of the said loan. No evidence in support of the aforesaid contention was produced and, hence, this plea was rejected as is specifically mentioned in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is clear and obvious that the order impugned turns on facts; that the appellant is attempting to rekindle the factual controversy which is not possible in the present jurisdiction of this Court. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring expression of opinion by this Court.
5. This appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-171/L Appeal dismissed.