PTD 2001

2001 PLP 2300 (PTD)

C.I.T., ZONE‑B, LAHROE Versus Messrs NIAMAT & BROTHERS, SHAHKOT

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 2300 (PTD)
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
Parties C.I.T., ZONE‑B, LAHROE Versus Messrs NIAMAT & BROTHERS, SHAHKOT
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2300 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2300 (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 2300 (PTD) (C.I.T., ZONE‑B, LAHROE Versus Messrs NIAMAT & BROTHERS, SHAHKOT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner.
  • Saddat Ali Khawja for Respondent

Judgment & Decree

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑-This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has framed for our considered and opinion:‑‑‑ "Whether an assessment which had become time‑barred under the repealed Incometax Act before coming into force of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 can be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance?"

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the view that he has not been able to make out a case. The view of the Tribunal with regard to invocation of provisions of section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 where an assessment had become barred by time under the repealed Act, 1922 has recently been considered by us in C.T.R. No.329 of 1991 re: Iqbal Poultary Farm v. CIT. In that case the Tribunal held that an Assessing Officer could not re‑open an assessment which was barred by limitation under the provisions of section. 34 of the late Incometax Act, 1922:

3. For the reasons recorded in that opinion while maintaining the view adopted by the Tribunal we will hold that an assessment which had become barred by time under the repealed Incometax Act, 1922 could not be reopened under section 65 of the Ordinance.

4. Answered accordingly. C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑80/L Order accordingly.