2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant.
- Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 35, 17‑B & 10(4)‑‑‑Rectification of mistake ‑‑‑Assessee contended that Inspecting Additional Commissioner exercised revisional powers under S. 17‑B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 to revise assessment orders passed by Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax 'who was not subordinate to him‑‑‑Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not pass such order without getting the orders of transfer of jurisdiction under S.10(4) of the Wealth. Tax Act, 1963‑‑‑Such assumption of jurisdiction over the case was a mistake apparent on the face of record‑‑Validity‑‑ Department had not been able to produce any order through which transfer of jurisdiction under S.10(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 had been secured in order to give revisional powers under S. 17‑B of‑the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 where the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had passed the order ‑‑‑ passed by the Appellate Tribunal were recalled and consequently, the orders of assessment passed under S. 17‑B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 were cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. PLD 2002 SC 208 rel.
Judgment & Decree
"The respondent had exercised. revisional powers under section 17‑B of the Act to revise assessment orders passed by Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle E‑I Zone‑E,. Karachi who was not subordinate to the respondent. The respondent could not pass such order without getting the orders of transfer of jurisdiction under section 10(4) of the Act. That this regard of section 10(4) of the Act, despise the fact that assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer at Karachi had the presumption of jurisdiction is a mistake apparent on the face of the record." It has, therefore, been prayed that the order passed by this 'Honourable Tribunal may kindly be recalled and cancelled. Arguments heard. Record perused. These misc. applications were filed in this Tribunal on 12‑6‑2003 and were fixed for 28‑6-2003. Since then the Revenue was given a chance to consult their record at Karachi and also to seek instructions from both the Regional Commissioners in this connection. Till date they have not been able to produce before us any order through which transfer of jurisdiction under section 10(4) of the Act has been secured in order to give revisional powers under section.17‑B of the Act from ALIT Circle‑E‑I Karachi to Lahore where the IAC has passed the order. Section 10(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, '1963 is reproduced below for ready reference:‑‑ . 10(4) Where a question arises as to whether a Wealth‑tax Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Commissioner, or where the question is one relating to the jurisdiction of different Commissioners by the Regional Commissioner or Regional Commissioners concerned and, if they are not in agreement, by the Central Board of Revenue. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment cited as PLD 2002 SC 208 in the similar circumstances, has held that:‑‑
O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court ‑‑‑Judgment‑‑ Expression "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" used in O.XXVI, R. 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Such error may be an error of fact or of law but must be self‑evident and floating on surface‑‑‑Orders based on erroneous assumption of material facts, or without adverting to a provision of law, or a departure from undisputed construction of law and Constitution, may, however, amount to error apparent on face of record." In view of the above the orders passed by this Tribunal in wealth tax appeals, dated 31‑12‑1999 are recalled and consequentially, the order of assessment passed under section 17‑B of the, Wealth Tax Act, 1963 for the charge years under appeal, dated 6‑8‑1999 are cancelled. All these petitigns are accepted in the above said terms C. M. A./332/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.