2003 PLP 2838 (PTD)
USMAN SIDDIQUI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX/ WEALTH TAX, LAHORE
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2838 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | USMAN SIDDIQUI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX/ WEALTH TAX, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2838 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2838 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2838 (PTD) (USMAN SIDDIQUI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX/ WEALTH TAX, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Irfan Ahmed Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Ahmed Sheikh for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th January, 2003. The petitioner is an individual and an assessee of the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 2001‑2002 he field his return to avail Self‑Assessment Scheme in terms given in Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18‑6‑2001. These conditions included a declaration of income higher at 20% or more comparing the tax payable on the income tax last declared or assessed. However, subsequently he was served with a notice refusing the concession inter alia on the ground that during assessment proceedings in respect of another year it transpired that the petitioner had undertaken foreign travels which had not been declared in the return filed under the Self‑Assessment Scheme. It was further alleged that on being confronted the individual/assessee amended his wealth statement attached with the return in order to explain these foreign travels. The revising of wealth statement according to the Revenue was a good reason for them to deny the concession of Self Assessment Scheme to the petitioner:
2. However, I will not agree. The petitioner having declared higher income by certain percentage as required by the Revenue is certainly I entitled to avail the concession. The issue if revising of wealth statement` in the background of earlier proceedings does not appear very much material as far the availing of the concession is concerned. The other question that in terms of para. 7(vi) the petitioner has been guilty of concealment will also not derogate from his right to avail Self‑Assessment Scheme. If at all the Revenue is in possession of an evidence of concealment the only way open for it, is to first‑accept the return under Self‑Assessment Scheme and then to proceed to re‑open it in accordance with the provisions of law.
3. The issuance of impugned notice under section 61 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, dated 13‑4‑2002 in this view of the situation cannot be found to be a legal exercise of jurisdiction. It shall accordingly be set aside.
4. Petition accepted. S.A.K./U‑56/L Petition allowed.