2003 PLP 863 (PTD)
FAISALABAD Versus Messrs IBRAHIM & SONS, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 863 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | FAISALABAD Versus Messrs IBRAHIM & SONS, FAISALABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 863 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 863 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 863 (PTD) (FAISALABAD Versus Messrs IBRAHIM & SONS, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 59 & 136‑‑‑Appellate jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Self --Assessment Scheme‑ ‑Substantial question of law‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Acceptance of a return filed under Self‑Assessment Scheme is restricted to a particular assessment year even in the case of an assessee‑‑‑Unless the controversy and the issue involved is of wide implication the same cannot be said to raise a substantive legal controversy‑‑‑Appeal is not maintainable in circumstances. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 59‑A, 66‑A & 136‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Self‑Assessment Scheme‑‑ Substantial question of law‑‑‑Income Tax Commissioner cancelled the return filed by assessee under the Self‑Assessment Scheme but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Every question of law need not be referred to High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be so referred‑Question framed by the Authorities being neither of law nor had raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties, High Court declined to answer the same in circumstances. CIT v. Messrs Imminan International, Lahore P.T.R. No.20 of 1991 and The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 ref. Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue at pre‑admission stage, we are not inclined to agree that the impugned order of the Tribunal give rise to any substantive question of law.
2. It appears that the assessee filed a return under Self‑Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1993‑94 disclosing income from various source including agricultural implements. The return so filed was accepted under Self‑Assessment Scheme on 20‑2‑1995. Subsequently, the concerned IAC concluded that the return never qualified under Self- Assessment Scheme and had, therefore, wrongly been accepted under section 59‑A of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Therefore, he proceeded to cancel the same. On appeal a Division Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the learned IAC and concluded that the invocation of the provisions of section 66‑A of the late Ordinance were bad in law and therefore, set aside the same. According to the Revenue following question of law' arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 24‑2‑1998:‑‑ "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to vacate order under section 66‑A ignoring the fact that assessment was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue?"
3. After going through the statement of the case and on hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are of the view that the question as reproduced above does not raise a substantive legal controversy to be resolved by this Court. It has been a consistent view of this Court that the issue if a return qualified to be accepted under Self‑Assessment Scheme is not a question of law to be answered by this Court. The acceptance of a return filed under Self‑Assessment Scheme, it hardly need emphasis, is restricted to a particular assessment year even in case of an assessee. Unless the controversy and the issue involved is of wide implication it cannot be said to raise a substantive legal controversy.
4. In a recent opinion expressed on 14‑11‑2000 in PTR No. 20 of 1991 re: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International, Lahore we have discussed the issue at length in the light of the. judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: The Lungla (Sythet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Dacca Circle Dacca (1970 SCMR 872). The Hon'ble apex Court in that case held that every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be so referred. The question as framed is neither of law nor has raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and therefore, we will decline to answer.
5. Answer declined. Q.M.H./C‑194/L Answer declined.