1968 PLP 96 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, DACCA‑Applicant Versus MESSRS MOBARRAK CLOTH STORES, SYLHET — Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 96 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Dacca Pakistan |
| Bench Members | A. S. Chowdhury and Abdul Hakim Khan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, DACCA‑Applicant Versus MESSRS MOBARRAK CLOTH STORES, SYLHET — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 96 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 96 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Dacca Pakistan bench comprising: A. S. Chowdhury and Abdul Hakim Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 96 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, DACCA‑Applicant Versus MESSRS MOBARRAK CLOTH STORES, SYLHET — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. H. Mirza for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing: 2nd and 6th November 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 26‑A‑Registration of firm-- Deed of partnership executed on 1‑1‑1960‑Claim for registration during previous year ending on 31‑12‑1959‑Cannot be allowed --Firm can be registered with effect from date of execution of deed, i.e.1‑1‑1960. Messrs Noor Hossain v. Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca P L D 1964 Dacca 373 and Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Noor Hussain P L D 1964 S C 657 ref: Afzalul Haque for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Afzalul Haque for Applicant. A. H. Mirza for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 2nd and 6th November 1967. A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.‑This reference under section 66 (1) of the Income‑tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax arises in the following circumstances: The partnership deed on the basis of which the assessee applied for registration was executed on the 1st of January, 1960. The Income‑tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for registration during the previous year, i.e. accounting year ending on the 31st December 1959 on the ground that no firm was constituted within the accounting year. The appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. The Tribunal, however, allowed the registration of the firm for the whole of the relevant accounting year on the basis of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Messrs Noor Hossain v. Commis sioner of Income‑tax, Dacca (P L D 1964 Dacca 373). That very case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan which reached the conclusion that an assessee is entitled to registration with effect from the date of the execution of the deed. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Noor Hussain (P L D 1964 S C 657). The Tribunal then found that the basis on which its own decision was given disappeared. The Tribunal therefore referred the following question for our opinion. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the deed of partnership executed on the 1st day of January, 1960, corresponding to 16th Pous 1366 B. S., registration claimed under section 26‑A of the Income‑tax Act for the whole of the accounting year, 1366 B. S. was rightly allowed by the Tribunal for the Tax year 1960‑61?" The answer to the question as framed and referred to us must be in the negative as we are of opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the firm should be registered with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960 on which date the deed of partnership was executed. There will be no order as to costs. A. H. KHAN, J.‑I agree. S. Q. Reference answered in the negative.