2002 PLP 2386 (PTD)
AKRAM GENERAL STORE Versus INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2386 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | AKRAM GENERAL STORE Versus INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2386 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2386 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2386 (PTD) (AKRAM GENERAL STORE Versus INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aneel Sagar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 59, 62 & 136(2)
Return under Self-Assessment Scheme-- Selection of case for total audit
First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal of assessee reducing, the estimation of sales-- Assessee for the first time agitated before Tribunal the question of selection of. his case for total audit
Tribunal rejected the appeal-- Validity
Tribunal was right in observing that issue of acceptance of return under self-assessment scheme was never a moot point before them
Acceptance of a return under self-assessment scheme generally did riot give rise to a question of law
High Court dismissed the reference being not competent as the question involved therein was not substantive in nature.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is an individual /assessee of the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 2000-2001 he returned an income of Rs.1,06,600 under self-assessment scheme. On selection of his case for total audit his income was enhanced to Rs.2,40,000 through an assessment order framed on 18-5-2001.
2. He succeeded partly before the learned First Appellate Authority where estimation of sales was found to be excessive and, therefore, reduced to some extent.
3. Before the learned Tribunal for the first time, the assessee agitated against- the selection of his case for total audit. Learned Members of the Tribunal refused to entertain tile plea. Thereafter, they also rejected the plea of the assessee for reference of certain questions of law with regard to the selection of the case for total audit as proposed by the assessee. This has brought him before this Court under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 alleging that following questions of law have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, dated 11-10-2001:
(i) Whether the judgment made by the Hon'ble High Court Lahore in W.P. Nos.8003. 8004. 10611, 10612. 8683, 8389 and 10776 of 2001 was binding on the department'? (ii) Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Federal Tax Ombudsman was binding on the Department'? (iii) Whether in the light of above judgments the Special Officer of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faisalabad were competent to assess and decide the cases of SAS selected through computer balloting" (iv) Whether the selection of applicant's case for total audit was illegal, uncalled for and against self-assessment scheme'? (v) Whether the Circular No. 7(7) S. Asstt./2000 Islamabad, dated 17-7-2001 issued to all Regional Commissioners could be ignored by the CIT(Appeals) Faisalabad or was not binding in 'nature'?
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that this reference petition is not competent. Learned Members of the Tribunal are right in observing that the issue of acceptance of return under self-assessment scheme was never a moot point before them. Even otherwise, it is our consistent view that generally the acceptance of a return under self-assessment does not give rise to the question of law to be answered by this Court. For, the question so involved in not substantive in nature.
5. Reference dismissed in limine. S.A.K/1149/L Reference answered,