1990 PLP 579 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MUHAMMAD BANA
| Citation | 1990 PLP 579 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MUHAMMAD BANA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 579 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 579 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 579 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MUHAMMAD BANA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. Salahuddin for Waheed Farooqui for Respondent.
- In view of our conclusion it is not necessary to decide the second question referred in the case learned Counsel for the department as well as respondent agree that the second reference fixed today namely ITR No. 80/1984 involves identical points, we accordingly dismiss the said application also as time barred but there will be no order as to the costs.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This reference application under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, is filed by the Department in this Court directly upon refusal of the Tribunal to state the question and refer it to High Court on the ground that the application was time‑barred. The learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application and urged that section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not apply in the present case. It is urged that assessment proceedings related to the period prior to the enforcement of Ordinance of 1979 and as such the present reference will be governed by section 66 of the Income- tax Act, 1922 which did not provide for filing of an application to the High Court directly in the event of its dismissal by the Tribunal as time‑barred. It is not disputed before us that the application filed by the department before the Tribunal for making a reference to this Court was filed after 60 days which is the period prescribed under section 66 of the repealed Act. It was accordingly, rightly rejected by the Tribunal as time‑barred. In these circumstances the present reference under section 136 is not maintainable. The learned Counsel has invited our attention to the decision in the case of the Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1988 P T D 227 in which in similar circumstances the application filed under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was held to be not maintainable. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the above case and we accordingly dismiss the application as not maintainable. In view of our conclusion it is not necessary to decide the second question referred in the case learned Counsel for the department as well as respondent agree that the second reference fixed today namely ITR No. 80/1984 involves identical points, we accordingly dismiss the said application also as time barred but there will be no order as to the costs. M.B.A./C‑153/K Application dismissed.