2001 PLP 2247 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE Versus Messrs A. L, HAMIDI, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2247 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE Versus Messrs A. L, HAMIDI, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2247 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2247 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2247 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE Versus Messrs A. L, HAMIDI, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia Haider Rizvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑The Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has framed following question of law for our consideration and reply:‑‑‑ "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that section 5(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance can be construed to mean that the powers of approval by the I.A.C. in section 13 of the Ordinance must be exercised by a Commissioner if an I.A.C. is exercising the powers of an Income‑tax Officer under the said section 5(1)(c) of the Ordinance.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the aforesaid question already stands replied in the affirmative by this Court while disposing I.T.As. Nos.353 to 355 of 2000. While discussing the issue it was inter alia held that an‑‑assessment order had to be made by a DCIT while this privilege, in respect of certain classes of persons or cases A could very well be exercised by a person higher in the hierarchy of tax administration. However, when such power is exercised by a person higher in authority the order so framed continues to be that of the higher authority. Also it was noted that keeping in view the words and phraseology used in section 66‑A(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance; 1979 an authority equal in status could not "call for the record" and "examine" the same. Accordingly we reached the conclusion that the power conferred under section 5(1)(c) of the Ordinance, 1979 simultaneously substituted an I.A.C. for the C.I.T. and that such transfer or substitution remained intact till the possibility of exercise of a jurisdiction conferred on an I.A.C. in respect of completed assessment remained intact. In other words, an assessment order framed by an I.A.C. while exercising the powers of D.C.I.T did not come to cease to be so on the completion of the assessment order but continued to be one ` recorded by an I.A.C.
3. That being so far various other reasons detailed in the aforesaid appeals, we will agree with the learned Tribunal that since the assessment I in question was framed by an I.A.C. the approval for addition under section 13(e) of the Ordinance, 1979 had to be obtained from the concerned Commissioner. Therefore, we will return an affirmative answer to the aforesaid question.
4. Answered accordingly. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑90/L Question answered.