2003 PLP 1850 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs ALEEM ULLAH AND CO., PROPRIETOR EHSAN ULLAH, GHALLA MANDI, WAZIRABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1850 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs ALEEM ULLAH AND CO., PROPRIETOR EHSAN ULLAH, GHALLA MANDI, WAZIRABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1850 (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 2003 PLP 1850 (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: 2003 PLP 1850 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA Versus Messrs ALEEM ULLAH AND CO., PROPRIETOR EHSAN ULLAH, GHALLA MANDI, WAZIRABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 59, 62 & 136
Selecting return for total audit--Appellate Authority approved plucking of return out of self-assessment scheme, but Tribunal set aside such order
Whether return filed by assessee qualified for acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme, was necessarily an issue based upon facts
Such issue did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between Revenue and assessee-- High Court dismissed appeal in limine. CIT v. Messrs Imminan International Lahore CTR No. 20 of 1991 and Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. .Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant. In this appeal by Revenue under section 136 of .the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, following questions of law are stated to have arisen out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lahore Bench, Lahore, dated 10-8-1997:-- (1) "Whether or not under the circumstances of case the learned ITAT was justified in directing to accept the assessee's returned income under self-assessment scheme when definite information regarding law declaration of G. P. rate was available on record." (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified to hold that low G.P. rate cannot be termed as material evidence to suspect under statement?
2. The respondent is an individual and a rice dealer. For the assessment year 1992-93 he filed a return to disclose net income at Rs.56,950 under self-assessment scheme. His case was plucked out of the scheme on the ground of lowness of G.P. Rate declared at 7.37%. According to the Assessing Officer generally a rate of 10% was being applied in similar other cases. Thereafter, on usual proceedings he framed an assessment under section 62 of the Ordinance, 1979 on 31-10-1993 at net income of Rs.1,37,726.
3. The assessee succeeded partially in the first appeal where a G.P. rate @ 8.50% was directed to be applied. However, plucking of the return out of scheme was approved.
4. On further appeal a learned Member in Chamber/Accountant Member found the setting a part of the return for total audit to have been made on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to accept the return under self-assessment scheme.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we will decline to answer the aforesaid questions. The issue if a return filed by substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and the assessee. In a recent opinion expressed on 14-11-2000 in CTR No.20/91 re: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International Lahore we have discussed the issue at length in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax; Dacca Circle, Dacca (1970 SCMR 872). The Hon'ble Apex Court in than case held that every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be so referred. The questions as framed are neither of law nor have raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and therefore, we will answer.
6. Appeal dismissed in limine. S.A.K./C-212/L Appeal dismissed.