1985 PLP 759 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1985 PLP 759 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Farhat Ali Khan, Judicial Member |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 759 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 759 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Farhat Ali Khan, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 759 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mazhar‑ul‑Hassan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Farid D. R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 16th December, 1984.
- Mr. Mazhar‑ul‑Hassan, Advocate appearing for the appellant have vehemently contended that the I: T. O. bad no jurisdiction to re‑open the assessment completed under section 59(1) as Circular No. 32 of 1980, dated 7th December, 3960 did not apply in his case The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that .the appellant an individual earning his income from sale of artificial jewellery, filed his return for assessment year 1980‑81 under self‑Assessment and the same was accepted under section 59(1) of the I. T. Ordinance. However, subsequently, the assessment was re‑opened in view of Circular No. 32 of 1980, dated 7"th December, 1980. The appellant against filed his return showing income at Rs. 20,990 with total‑sales of Rs. 2,18,796 G. P. rate of 25.6 % and G. P. of Rs. 56,'728. The I. T. O. however for various reasons given in his assessment order rejected the trading versions and estimated‑ the sales at Rs. 3,25,000 and applied G. P. rate of 26 % The appellant felt aggrieved and went up in appeal. The learned A. A. C. vide his order, dated 25th May, 1982 recorded in 1. T. A. No. AAC/E/KE/1583/ 1980‑81 confirmed the order of I.‑T. O.
- 2. Elaborating his argument Mr. M. H. Advocate submitted that clause 6 of paragraph B of Circular No. 32 of 1980, dated 7th December, 1980 dealt with cases of jewellery, goldsmith and bullion dealers and did not cover the case of dealer of artificial jewellery. According to learned counsel the appellant was dealer of artificial jewellery and was a retailer. When his attention was invited to memorandum of appeal and the order of the learned A. A. C. Mr. M....ul....H...Advocate submitted that the appellant had filed an affidavit alongwith additional grounds of appeal in which the question regarding the applicability of Circular 32 of 1980 and invalidity of the notice issued under section 65 were taken. He also extensively argued against the various findings of the Assessing Officer recorded in his assessment order. However, I do not wish to dilate on them simply for the reason that the appeal may be disposed of merely on the legal grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Income‑tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑ ‑‑ S. 59‑C. B. R. Circular No. 32 of 1980, cl. B, para. (ii)‑Expres sion "jewellery dealer", meaning of‑"Jewellery dealer" as used in circular with reference to goldsmith and bullion dealers, held, referred to only jewellers who deal in jewels or other valuable articles and by no stretch of imagination it could include dealer of artificial jewellery in. its ambit. Manual of Imports & Exports Control, p. 127 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes‑‑ -‑ Taxing provision curtailing rights of assessee to be strictly constructed‑Where two interpretations of such provision were possible, one favouring assesses should be accepted.
Judgment & Decree
3. Mr. M...F...the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the word "jewellery" also included artificial jewellery in its meaning. Referring to Vallentine's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Mr. M...F .the learned D. R. argued that the word jewellery included all articles of personal adornment. As such according to learned D. R. immitation jewellery fell within the definition of jewellery for the simple reason that it was also an article of personal adornment. He also addressed me against submissions of Mr. M...ul...H...the learned counsel for the appellant point by point and supported the orders of both the officers below.
4. I have beard both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned D. R. and have also perused both assessment as well as impugned order. Before dealing with the merits of the case I think it would be in the fitness of things if reproduce paragraph (ii) of clause B alongwith Circular 32 of 1980. It reads :‑ "As provided in paragraph 5 of Circular No. 18 of 1980, dated 28th July, 1980, C. B. R. has decided to select the following cases for detailed scrutiny for the assessment year 1980‑81 out of company and non‑Company returns filed upto 6th November, 1980. (a) Company cases . (II) ........................................ (I) ........................................ . (b) Non‑Company cases : (I) ........................................ (VI) Cases of jewellery, goldsmith and Bullion dealers. From bare perusal of paragraph (vi) of clause (b) of aforesaid Circular it appears that the word "jewellery dealer" as used in the aforesaid circular means and implies a person who deals in gems, diamonds and other costly articles of personal adornment. It has been used with words "goldsmiths" and "bullion dealers" which indicate emphasis on value of the article of personal adornment rather than adornment itself. I am, therefore, of the view that the words, "jewellery dealer" as used in the circular with reference to gold‑14 smith and bullion dealers refer to only jewellers who deal in jewels or other valuable articles and by no stretch of imagination it can include the dealer of artificial jewellery in its ambit.
5. Moreover, the words "jewellery" and jewels" have been used in other allied laws also. For example in Manual of Imports and Exports Control and at page 127 the words "jewellery" and "jewels" have been used in contradistinction with "artificial or immitation jewellery". Similarly in Pakistan Custom Tariff and Import Trade Guide the articles of jewellery and immitation jewellery have been used separately for the purpose of entries No. 71.12 and 71.16 When both the expression immitation or artificial jewellery and jewellery have been used separately in the allied laws which deal with controls regarding import and exports and custom duty, I do not think that the Control Board of Revenue would have departed from this practice in Circular No. 32 of 1980 by ascribing different and wider meaning to words "jewellery dealer" In any case, since the circular curtails the right of an assessee under Self‑Assessment Scheme it should be interpreted strictly and in such a way that if two interpretations are possible only the one which favours the assessee should be accepted.
6. Now turning to the facts of the case it appears that the appellant is admittedly a retailer of artificial jewellery. It further transpires from perusal, of the record that 99 % sales of the appellant were cash and below RS. 1,
000. This fact further lends support to my conclusion that the Circular No. 32 of 1980 was not meant for dealer of artificial jewellery. For the reasons given above I am of the view that the I.‑T. O. fell in error in reopening the assessment of the appellant by taking resort to Circular No. 32 of 1980. Since the case of the appellant was qualified to be accepted under Self‑Assessment Scheme 1, therefore, allow this appeal and by setting aside both the orders of the officers below direct the I.-T. O. to accept the return as filed by the appellant. Since the appeal has been disposed of on this legal point I refrain from dealing with the other aspects of the matter discussed in detail by I.‑T. O. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. M. B. A. Appeal accepted.