1987 PLP 184 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus SOOMER SALEH FOUNDATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1987 PLP 184 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Ally Madad Shah, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus SOOMER SALEH FOUNDATION, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 184 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 184 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Ally Madad Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 184 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI Versus SOOMER SALEH FOUNDATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1986.
- In the circumstances the present application under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 has been filed by the respondent/ assessee. We have heard Mr. Salahuddin, learned counsel for the department. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
- On a question from the Court, learned counsel for the department frankly conceded that the finding of the tribunal that proceedings could not be initiated and case re-opened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act had not been challenged by the department before the A Tribunal. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal in their order dated 7-6-1975 dismissing the application under section 66(1) is correct.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 66(1)(2) & 34--Reference--Finding of Tribunal that proceedings could not be initiated and case re-opened under S. 34 had not been challenged by Department before Tribunal--View taken by the Tribunal in its order dismissing application under S. 66(1), held, was correct in circumstances. K. Salahuddin for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J --This is an application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 by the department. The assessment year is 1972-73. After the order dated 18-3-1977 of the Income-tax Tribunal quashing the proceedings taken by the Assessing Officer re-opening the case under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, an application had been filed under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act for referring several questions to this Court for opinion but by order dated 7-6-1975 the Income-tax Tribunal rejected the application observing as follows:- "We, however, find that the respondent's assertion in this case is correct in as much as no objection has been taken to the quashment of the proceedings initiated under section
34. Similarly the findings on merits are entirely findings of facts. Therefore, even if we, for the sake of argument, refer the case under section 66(1), the matter would be only of an academic nature, as our findings against actions initiated under section 34, would continue to bar any further assessments for these years since these findings have not been questioned by the Department. For these reasons, we see no justification for referring the question and the application will accordingly be rejected." In the circumstances the present application under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 has been filed by the respondent/ assessee. We have heard Mr. Salahuddin, learned counsel for the department. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. On a question from the Court, learned counsel for the department frankly conceded that the finding of the tribunal that proceedings could not be initiated and case re-opened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act had not been challenged by the department before the A Tribunal. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal in their order dated 7-6-1975 dismissing the application under section 66(1) is correct. As a result, this application under section 66(2) is dismissed as the questions mentioned in the application of the department do not arise for our consideration for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. M.B.A./5141/K Application dismissed.