1991 PLP 871 (PTD)
Messrs NASEER MUGHIS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONZR OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE
| Citation | 1991 PLP 871 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | M. Mahboob Ahmad, C.J. and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Messrs NASEER MUGHIS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONZR OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 871 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 871 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: M. Mahboob Ahmad, C.J. and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 871 (PTD) (Messrs NASEER MUGHIS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONZR OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Amin But for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J.
In this Tax Reference an objection has been raised as to its maintainability on the ground that certified copy of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal having not been tiled with the Reference Application, it is not competent. Reliance in support of the above objection has been placed on "Commissioner of Income-tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi v. Mian Javed A. Sheikh" reported as 1989 P T D 525.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has submitted that this Tax Reference was filed alongwith Tax Reference No. 65 of 1973 and that the certified copy of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had been filed with the said Tax Reference as it was considered that exemption can be had from filing certified copy with the Tax Reference under discussion, the two being against the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. We are afraid the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner would not detract from the validity of the objection that the present Reference as presented is not maintainable. It is a mandatory requirement by virtue of section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 as amended by Finance Ordinance (XIV of 1971) that a certified copy of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal will be filed alongwith the reference, which requirement has admittedly been not complied with. It may also be observed that not only the certified copy had not been annexed with the Reference Application, there is no application even till date filed by the petitioner for seeking exemption from filing the said certified copy. Needless to mention that Order XLI, Rule 1, C.P.C. also requires the filing of certified copy of the impugned order and all other documents alongwith every appeal notwithstanding the position that the appeals have been preferred against the same judgment unless the Appellate Court dispenses with the filing of certified copy in any one of such appeals.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Reference is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. M.B.A./N-4,63/L Reference dismissed.