2005 PLP 88 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus OLIVES CATERING
| Citation | 2005 PLP 88 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus OLIVES CATERING |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 88 (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 2005 PLP 88 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 88 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus OLIVES CATERING). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13(1)(aa) & 136
Question of law-- Assessing Officer made an addition in the declared income of assessee on account of unexplained investment
Appellate Authority deleted the addition but Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially maintained the deletion
Plea raised by the Income Tax authorities was that the Appellate Authorities were not justified in deleting the additions made under S.13(1)(aa) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Appellate Authority deleted the entire addition on the basis of general observations
In the view of the Tribunal the Appellate Authority neither considersed the credit nor any explanation was offered to the authority, therefore, to that extent the addition was restored
From such findings of fact no question of law hard arisen unless it could be established that either the observations were not supported from record or else the Tribunal reached a. conclusion which was against the record
High Court refused to entertain the question
Appeal was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
In this further appeal under, section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-B, Lahore claims that following question of law arises out of the impugned order of the, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore dated 21-10-1998:-- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) Zone-V, Lahore was justified to delete the addi tions made by the Assessing Authority under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and further the learned ITAT was justified to confirm the same by dismissing the Departmental Appeal.
2. The respondent/assessee is a registered firm and during the relevant period derived income from catering business. As against the declared income of Rs.80,000 for the year, 1991-92 an assessment was framed-at total income of Rs.9,44,794 which; inter alia included an addition of Rs.3,22,245 made, under section 13(1)(aa) of the late Ordinance.
3. On appeal learned First Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (Appeals) Lahore deleted the aforesaid addition made on account of unexplained investment. On departmental appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal; however, allowed partial relief inasmuch as the deletion of addition to the extent of Rs.1,25,400 claimed as credit was maintained on account of absence of an explanation put forth before the authorities below by the assessee. Rest of the deletion was maintained. Hence this further appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. The issue if part of the addition made under section 13(1)(aa) on account of unexplained investment was supported from the material on record and the rest, of it was not hardly gives rise to a question of law to be considered by this Court. The learned Tribunal found that the first appellate forum deleted the entire addition on the basis of general observations. In their view the learned CIT (Appeals) did not consider the credit of Rs.1,25,400 nor any explanation was offered to him. Therefore, to that extent the departmental appeal was accepted and the addition was restored under the said provisions of the Ordinance. From these findings no question of law, can be said to have arisen unless it can be established that either these observations were not supported from the record or else the Tribunal reached a conclusion which was against the record. None of the two situations being present, in the case, we will refuse to entertain the question.
5. Dismissed in limine. M.H./C-25/L Petition dismissed.