SCMR 1975

1975 PLP 154 (SCMR)

KARACHI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AHD ANOTHER — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-110 of 19 74, decided on 4th September 1974.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1975 PLP 154 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties KARACHI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AHD ANOTHER — Respondents
Primary Law Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 154 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 154 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 154 (SCMR) (KARACHI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AHD ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)

Representation

  • Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 4th September 1974.
  • Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 29th May 19' 14 in Petition No. 612 of 1974).

S. 5 (7-A)-Transfer of case from one Income-tax Officer to another--No provision. for issuance of notice to assessee.

Judgment & Decree

S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 4th September 1974. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The Incometax Officer, Circle II, Karachi, was processing the return filed by the petitioners for the years 1969‑70 and 1970‑71 when he was transferred to Circle "R", Karachi. In order that the same officer may continue to deal with it, the Commissioner of Incometax acting in pursuance to the powers conferred on him by subsection (7‑A) of section 5 of the Incometax Act transferred the case to the Incometax Officer, Circle "It". The petitioners felt aggrieved by the order and moved for its quashment in the High Court on the ground that it was without lawful authority. The learned Chief Justice who heard the writ petition found no merits in the contention that the order of transfer was without jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal. Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi appearing In support of the petition conceded that the Commissioner of Incometax had the jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner's assessment case from Incometax Officer, IInd Circle, to Incometax Officer, "R" Circle, but maintained that the impugned order vas liable to be set aside as no notice was issued to the assessees before it was made. There is no provision in subsection (7‑A) of section 5 of the Income tax Act for issuance of a notice before a case is transferred from one officer to another by the Central Board of Revenue or the Commissioner of Incometax, but it was urged that the rule of natural justice required that before an order adverse to a party is passed he shall be heard. There is little force in the contention. The order passed by the Commissioner of Incometax transferring the case from Incometax Officer, IInd Circle to Income-tax Officer; "R" Circle, was merely calculated to enable the same officer to finalise the assessments who was already dealing with them. Per se such an order did not result in any prejudice to the assessees. We further find that in view of the complaint made by the petitioners that the Incometax Officer, Circle "R" was biased against them, the Commissioner of Incometax has given directions that the Inspecting Assistant Incometax Commissioner shall approve the assessment made by the Incometax Officer before it is finalized and that if the petitioners have any specific grievance against the Incometax Officer, they should bring ft to the notice of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incometax. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners calling in question the order passed by the Incometax Commissioner was rejected. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.