2001 PTD 2133 (PLP)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE Versus Messrs HAKAM QURESHI, LAW ASSOCIATES, LAHORE
| Citation | 2001 PTD 2133 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE Versus Messrs HAKAM QURESHI, LAW ASSOCIATES, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PTD 2133 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PTD 2133 (PLP)?
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 PTD 2133 (PLP) (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE Versus Messrs HAKAM QURESHI, LAW ASSOCIATES, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
- 2. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment for the year 1985‑86 refused the benefit of para. 2 and para. 4 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It was observed that one of the partners of the assessee firm namely Mr. Khanzada Saifullah. Khan was not a professional and qualified lawyer/professional. The learned first appellate authority maintained the findings so recorded. The learned Tribunal on further appeal, however, found it as a fact that the afore‑said member/partner of the firm was a professional lawyer/member of Punjab Bar Association since 17‑4‑1978. Also the statement earlier ascribed to the Advocate of the petitioner‑assessee firm was found to be unauthorized.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑--This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑‑ Question of Law. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is a firm of professionals which qualifies to be so under para. (2B) of Part‑IV of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in spite of the fact that no evidence was produced to substantiate the claim at lower forum particularly when the A.R. admitted that one of the partners was a non‑professional?"
2. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment for the year 1985‑86 refused the benefit of para. 2 and para. 4 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It was observed that one of the partners of the assessee firm namely Mr. Khanzada Saifullah. Khan was not a professional and qualified lawyer/professional. The learned first appellate authority maintained the findings so recorded. The learned Tribunal on further appeal, however, found it as a fact that the afore‑said member/partner of the firm was a professional lawyer/member of Punjab Bar Association since 17‑4‑1978. Also the statement earlier ascribed to the Advocate of the petitioner‑assessee firm was found to be unauthorized.
3. The learned counsel for the Revenue claims that in the face of concurrent findings of fact by the Assessing Officer as well as the A.C. the learned Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee firm.
4. However, we are not persuaded to answer the question as framed. The Tribunal necessarily recorded a finding of fact that the partner of the firm was a professional. Even a_ positive date of enrolment of the alleged non‑professional member was given in the order. The learned counsel for the Revenue having not challenged these findings of fact, we will decline to answer the question on the ground of its being predominently a question of fact.
5. Answer declined. M. B. A./C‑70/L Answer declined