2025 PLP 569 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR ALAMGIR and others
| Citation | 2025 PLP 569 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Asim Hafeez and Shahid Karim, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR ALAMGIR and others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 569 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 569 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Asim Hafeez and Shahid Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 569 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR ALAMGIR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 130
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, jurisdiction of
Adjudication of matter-in-issue
Passing judgment without giving reasons
Effect
Department filed Reference contending that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) dismissed their appeal in a mechanical way and failed to consider the applicability and scope of various/relevant provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the context of issue-in-question(gains bagged through sale of properties)
Relevant/operative paragraph of the impugned order showed that the ATIR abdicated its jurisdiction and allowed appeal simplicitor while referring to an earlier order having been previously passed by it (ATIR) ,without extending reasons to establish alleged similarity of facts / causes giving "considered opinion that the ATIR had already decided the same issue of two members of AOP through a very well-reasoned and speaking order
Thus, impugned order was devoid of plausible reasoning and patently ambiguous; no explanation was found to understand the meaning or rational of the expression "two members of AOP"
Evidently, effect of various provisions of law, in the context of allegations, was not dilated upon, let alone considered
ATIR was required to consider the scope of various sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Fair and proper adjudication of matter-in-issue was missing
High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for decision afresh on the Appeal of the taxpayer
Reference application, filed by Department, was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No. 1/2023 This application seeks restoration of titled reference application. Affidavit of learned counsel is attached herewith. For the reasons pleaded, this application is allowed. And main case is restored to its original number Office is directed to fix this case today. Main case
2. This Reference application arises out of order dated 24.07.2012 of learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal"), and following question of law is proposed for our opinion, "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ATIR was justified to hold that the sale of properties was not in nature of trade merely on the ground that the, properties in question were received through inheritance whereas sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Income Tax Ordinance specifically provides for taxation of gain on sale of such - properties which have been received at no costs under inheritance?"
3. Matter pertains to Tax year 2005.
4. Report of service of notices is available. Despite submission of power of attorney none of the counsels for the taxpayer are present. We are not inclined to adjourn the proceedings, pending since 2012.
5. Learned counsel submits that Tribunal failed to consider the applicability and scope of various provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in the context of the gains bagged through sale of properties. Learned counsel referred to paragraph 9 of the order to emphasize that Tribunal, in fact, abdicated its jurisdiction and allowed appeal simplicitor while referring to its earlier order without extending reasons to establish alleged similarity of facts / causes. For facility, operative part of paragraph 9 of the order is reproduced hereunder, "We have heard the rival arguments and persuade the case record and are of the considered opinion that the ATIR has already decided the same issue of two member of AOP through a very well-reasoned and speaking order, therefore, we do not find any plausible reason to differ with the earlier decision in ITA No.374/LB/2012 dated 04.06.2012 therefore, we dismiss the departmental appeal .being devoid of merit." [Emphasis supplied]
6. Order is devoid of plausible reasoning and patently ambiguous. No explanation is found to understand the meaning or rational of the expression "two members of AOP". Evidently, effect of various provisions of law, in the context of allegations was not dilated upon, let alone considered. Tribunal was required to consider the scope of various sections of the Ordinance. Fair and proper adjudication of matter in issue is missing, hence, we are constrained to allow this reference application, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter for decision afresh on the Appeal of the taxpayer.
7. Office shall send a copy of this order, under seal of the Court, to learned Appellate Tribunal. MQ/C-2/L Reference allowed.