2001 PLP 2137 (PTD)
Mst. FARIDA BIBI Versus I.T.O., CIRCLE-14, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2137 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FARIDA BIBI Versus I.T.O., CIRCLE-14, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2137 (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 2001 PLP 2137 (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 2137 (PTD) (Mst. FARIDA BIBI Versus I.T.O., CIRCLE-14, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.136
Scope
Obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case
Hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued the case
High Court, therefore, was not bound to answer the questions referred, if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent. Dada Bhai H. Mamma & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 and M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v: Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188 ref. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑--The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following questions for our consideration and reply: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was validly vested with jurisdiction to make the assessment? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in declaring to entertain the additional ground taken up before in concerning the proper approval of the JAC for the addition to the assessee's income under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and whether the approval was taken in accordance with law? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal for upholding the decision of the ITO, that the income invested in the Plaza at 15‑Center, New Garden Town, Lahore, had in law arisen in the area of jurisdiction of the ITO who completed the assessment and whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the same?
2. Learned counsel for the Revenue by relying upon a reported judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High. Court in re Dada Bahi H. Mama & Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1967) 16‑Tax 43) states that iii absence of the assessee at whose instance the aforesaid questions were referred, no opinion can be expressed by this Court.
3. In the said judgment their Lordships interpreted the provisions of section 66(5) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 which are similar to section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance under which the aforesaid questions have been referred to us. In the view of: their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further, that the hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued its case. Therefore, their Lordships found that they were not bound to answer the questions referred to it if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent. Reference in that respect was made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in re: M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 18).
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lord6hips in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above questions have been referred. We will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly. M.B.A./F‑35/L Order accordingly.