1989 PLP 764 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR SULEMAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 764 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR SULEMAN |
| Primary Law | (b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), (a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 764 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), (a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 764 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 764 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR SULEMAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 10th November, 1988.
- We have heard Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for the Respondent on the above questions. It is quite clear that the Question No.l referred to above does not arise in the circumstances of the case as the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner both reached the conclusion that the repatriated amount having not been sent to Pakistan by the Assessee within the period prescribed under M L R 105 read with M L R 112 the provisions of those M L Rs did not apply to the case of assessee. The Income-tax Tribunal while dealing with the above aspect of the case did not record any contrary finding and as such the question No.l referred to us does not arise on the facts of the Reference.
Headnotes / Summary
S.66 (2)--Foreign Exchange Repatriation Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 104]-Foreign Assets (Declaration) Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.105]--Reference--income -tax Officer as well as Appellate Assistant Commissioner both reached the conclusion that repatriated amount having not been sent to Pakistan by the assessee within the period prescribed under M.L.R. 105 read with M.L.R 112, the provisions of said M.L.Rs. did not apply to the case of assessee--Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with the said aspect of the case did not record any contrary finding--No question, thus, arose on the facts of the Reference.
Ss.66 (2) & 4 (2)--Foreign Exchange Repatriation Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R. 104]-- Foreign" Assets (Declaration) Regulation 1972 [M.L.R. 105]--Reference- Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the appeal of the assessee did not hold that repatriated amount was not liable to take under any of the provisions of Income-tax Act--Tribunal, in fact, while deciding case specifically found that department had wrongly assessed the repatriated amount under S.4 (2) of the Act which would not amount to the finding that said amount was not assessable under any other provisions of the Act--Question, as framed, therefore, would not arise on the facts of the Reference--Reference, thus, was dismissed. Shaikh Haider for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The following two questions have been referred to us by the Department under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for our decision. "
1. Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the exemption of Income-tax under M L R 104/105 in spite of the fact that he/she failed to remit the funds to Pakistan before the specified date?
2. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was justified in holding that the repatriated amount was not liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1922?" We have heard Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for the Respondent on the above questions. It is quite clear that the Question No.l referred to above does not arise in the circumstances of the case as the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner both reached the conclusion that the repatriated amount having not been sent to Pakistan by the Assessee within the period prescribed under M L R 105 read with M L R 112 the provisions of those M L Rs did not apply to the case of assessee. The Income-tax Tribunal while dealing with the above aspect of the case did not record any contrary finding and as such the question No.l referred to us does not arise on the facts of the Reference. The second question referred to us by the Department is actually misconceived as the Income-tax Tribunal nowhere in the order while deciding the appeal of the Assessee/respondent held that the repatriated amount was not liable to tax under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In fact the Tribunal while deciding the case specifically held that the Department has wrongly assessed the repatriated amount under section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act which does not amount to holding that the above amount was not assessable under any other provision of the Act. We therefore, hold that the second question as framed also does not arise on the facts of the Reference. We accordingly dismiss this Reference but leave the parties to bear their own costs. M.BA./C-100/K Reference dismissed.