1993 PTD 635 (PLP)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1993 PTD 635 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | M. Mahboob Ahmad, CJ. and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PTD 635 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PTD 635 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: M. Mahboob Ahmad, CJ. and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PTD 635 (PLP) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 66(2)
Application for reference filed without certified copy of the order of the Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi v. Mian Javid A. Sheikh 1989 PTD 525 ref. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991. M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CJ: --By this judgment we propose to deal with Tax References Nos. 109/73, 110/73, 111/73, 112/73, 67/74, 68/74 and 85/74 as in all of them the same question of law has been sought to be framed and answered. The question may be reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:--. "Whether on the facts and in the '-circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of refusal of renewal of registration consequent upon ex parte assessment under section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act was not valid in law?"
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the following two positions, which emerge from the record and the precedent case law on the subject:
(i) That certified copy of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal having not been filed with the reference application, the reference is not maintainable. ."Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi v. Mian Javid A. Sheikh" reported as 1989 PTD 525 was shown to the learned counsel in which it has been held that reference application filed without a certified copy of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not maintainable:
(ii) That the question framed as above already stands decided by the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Mst. Surriya Farooq and others reported as 1987 ` SCMR 1297.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to advance any argument to meet the objections as raised above.
4. In view of the foregoing, we hold that apart altogether from the position that the petitions are not maintainable, the petitioners having not filed the certified copy of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is a mandatory requirement as contained in section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 as amended by Finance Ordinance of 1971, the petitioners have no case on merits as well inasmuch as the controversy stands authoritatively concluded by virtue of the aforecited judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. Resultantly the References abovementioned are dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. M.B.A./C-17/L References dismissed.