2005 PLP 106 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus IMRAN SIDDIQUE
| Citation | 2005 PLP 106 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus IMRAN SIDDIQUE |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 106 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 106 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 106 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus IMRAN SIDDIQUE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Jamil Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13(1)(d), 65 & 136
Re-opening of assessment
Definite information-- Assessing Officer, on an information received, issued a show-cause notice to assessee suggesting that value of shop purchased by him in a particular locality was understated
Assessing Officer, after discarding submissions of assessee made in reply to show-cause notice, proceeded to make addition under S.13(1)(d) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Appellate Tribunal found that assessment could not be re-opened merely because assessee had-purchased certain property, unless there was a definite information regarding understatement of investment-- Issue, whether a definite information existed enabling the Revenue to re open a case under S.65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was necessarily a question of law, all the more so when Department failed to bring home any evidence to support its view that value of the property had been understated
Mere fact that in another Commercial Centre a shop with similar area was purchased by another assessee at a higher rate would not amount to definite information enabling Revenue to re-open a case
High Court declined to entertain and rule upon said question.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
In this further appeal under section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-A, Lahore claims that following question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 13-10-1998. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT, Lahore was justified in holding that the assessment could not be re-opened in terms of, section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance and in nullifying the orders of the Departmental authorities including the first appellate authority by accepting the second appeal."
2. According to the statement of the case the respondent/assessee is a member of Association of Persons and the proceedings in his case were filed as the assessee did not earn taxable income. Subsequently the Assessing Officer on an information received issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 28-5-1995 suggesting that a shop purchased by him in Raja Centre Extension with a covered area of 98 sq. ft. for a sum or Rs.1,75,000 was understated. Also on the basis of a report made by his Inspector he issued a fresh show-cause notice expressing his intention to estimate the value of the shop at Rs.7,000 per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer after discarding the submissions made in reply to the notice proceeded to make an addition of Rs.5,81,000 under section 13(1)(d) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
3. The assessee failed before the first appellate forum i.e. CIT (Appeals). On further appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal accepted the contentions put forth before it and held that the assessment could not be re-opened merely because the assessee has purchased certain property unless there was a definite information regarding understatement of the investment.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that the issue if a definite information existed enabling the Revenue to re-open a case under section 65 of the late Income Tax Ordinance is necessarily a question of law. All the more so when the department failed to bring home any evidence to support their view that the value of the property had been understated. Mere fact that in another Commercial Centre a shop with similar area was purchased by another assessee at a higher rate would not amount to definite information enabling the Revenue to re-open a case. Therefore, we will decline to entertain and rule upon the question.
5. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./C-29/L Appeal dismissed.