Re-opening of case

Authorities were aggrieved of the order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue annulling order under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Officer of Inland Revenue while reopening case of taxpayer for tax year 2009, did not give any reason, nor could point out any deficiency in accounts of taxpayer, for tax year 2009, which could possibly be considered as basis of reopening the case of taxpayer for the purposes of making assessment under S.122(5) & (9) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Authorities had made reference to Audit proceedings for tax year 2005, which were already finalized with the approval of Additional Commissioner as explanation offered by taxpayer in respect of disputed credit entries and revised return submitted by taxpayer for tax year 2005 was accepted and proceedings were dropped

Proceedings which already stood finalized in respect of the same subject receipts, could not have been reopened by the same officer

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts recorded by two forums below

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Criminal case was closed on the basis of compromise between parties and accused was acquitted by Trial Court in exercise of powers under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Complainant sought reopening of criminal case on the plea that accused had violated terms and conditions of compromise

Validity

Once compromise between parties, in compoundable offence had been effected, the same could not be withdrawn

Violation of terms and conditions of compromise was not a valid ground for re-opening the disposed of criminal proceedings

If any party had resiled from terms and conditions, aggrieved party was at liberty to seek remedy provided under law through competent court for enforcement and specific performance of terms and conditions of the compromise

Trial Court was justified in acquitting accused and such order was neither perverse nor suffering from any infirmity or illegality and did not require interference of High Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal declaring that provisions of S. 66-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could not be invoked in cases which were covered under S. 80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Validity

Protection provided to assessment made under S. 80-C meant that the same could not have been opened under any other provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, including S.66-A

High Court declined to interfere in decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the same was correct and Inspecting authority could not have opened the assessment made under S. 80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Provisions of S. 66-A could not be invoked in cases covered under S. 80-C

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

In exercise of powers under S. 45-A of Sales Tax Act, 1990, Collector vide his order dated 10-6-2006, directed Deputy Collector to reopen Order-in-Original and pass fresh order, which order of Collector was set aside by High Court

Validity

Order-in-Original was passed by Deputy Collector (Adjudication), who was not subordinate to Collector and the same was not challenged in appeal by any officer of Sales Tax department

Power of Board (Collector or Collector Adjudication) under S. 45-A of Sales Tax Act, 1990, to call for record remained in force till 29-6-2005, whereafter the same was amended by Finance Act 2005

It was after the amendment under S.45(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, that powers were given to Collector to call for and examine record of any proceedings under Sales Tax Act, 1990, suo motu

Amendments incorporated through Finance Act, 2005, were prospective in nature and were not applicable

Supreme Court did not find any irregularity or any infirmity in judgment passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Assessee was a public limited company, and its return was revised under S. 57 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the reason that in original return, interest income on which tax was deducted under S.50 (2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was inadvertently declared in the head `business income', whereas the same fell under S.80-B of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Validity

In case of public limited company, provision of S.80-B of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was not applicable

Interest income earned by such company was to be taxed as its income from other sources

Original order passed by Assessing Officer suffered with illegal infirmity and was a case of excessive relief or that of assessment made at too low rate which was rightly reopened under the provisions of S.65 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the department

High Court answered the reference in negative i.e. in favour of department and against assessee.