1993 PLP 728 (PTD)
M/s. BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, ZONE A, LAHORE and 5 others
| Citation | 1993 PLP 728 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Sheikh Abdul Mannan, JJ |
| Parties | M/s. BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, ZONE A, LAHORE and 5 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 728 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 728 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Sheikh Abdul Mannan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 728 (PTD) (M/s. BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, ZONE A, LAHORE and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.
This appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 calls in question an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23-8-1992 whereby he dismissed Writ Petition No. 7776 of 1992 filed by the appellant, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by Income Tax Officer, Lahore on the premises that as the principal place of business of the appellant was at Karachi, it could only be assessed at Karachi as provided by section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
2. During the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that an order of assessment has already been passed by the Income Tax Officer against which the appellant has gone in appeal which is stated to be pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of this development, the appeal has become infructuous.
3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it shall not be possible for him to raise the jurisdictional objection before the appellate authority as there are some decisions of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that in appeal only merits of the case can be considered.
4. We are not impressed by this argument of the learned counsel as it is always open for a party to demonstrate before the appellate forum that the order of which he is aggrieved was passed by an authority nor competent to do so.
5. Both the learned counsel have drawn our attention to subsection (4) of section 5 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which provides that in the event of dispute arising as to the principal place of business of assessee, the same has to be referred to the Regional Commissioner/Central Board of Revenue as the case may be. This aspect of the matter may also be agitated in the appeal. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal filed by the appellant within two months from today. It is clarified that it shall be open to the appellant to file a fresh petition, if need so arises. M.BA./B-74/L Order accordingly.