Concurrent findings of facts of courts below

Petitioners/ defendants assailed concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below whereby the respondents'/plaintiffs' suit for declaration and consequential relief was decreed

Validity

Respondents being legal heirs of deceased and sisters of petitioners were entitled to inherit their due share in the legacy of their father

Respondents had successfully proved their suit through reliable oral as well as documentary evidence but the petitioners had failed to prove the gift deed by producing any reliable evidence and no entry was made in the revenue record in favour of the petitioners on the basis of gift deed, as such, the courts below had rightly discarded the contention of the petitioners

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below were not open to exception unless it was established that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect/error or were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, which elements were conspicuously lacking in the present petition

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of High Court to disturb/reverse concurrent findings of facts and law under Art.199 of Constitution of Pakistan, is narrow

Such jurisdiction can be invoked only when it is apparent on the face of record that the concurrent findings are a result of an apparent irregularity and are based on consideration of extraneous material, or that the courts below had no jurisdiction in the matter or had completely failed to appreciate the facts and law in reaching the same.

Authorities were aggrieved of finding of Appellate Tribunal holding that claim of initial and normal depreciation were allowable in spite of facts that same related to repair and maintenance

Validity

Question relating to disallowance of expenses or claiming depreciation on fixed assets while transferring expenses on construction work incurred in previous years which was completed during tax year under consideration were questions of fact which had been dealt with in detail by forums below by recording concurrent findings on such facts

Such finding of facts could not be disturbed in Reference under S. 133 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unless such concurrent finding was either perverse or contrary to record

Findings of facts did not give rise to a question of law which could be entertained by High Court under its reference jurisdiction

No merit was found in reference application, whereas questions proposed were questions of facts and no question of law had arisen from order passed by Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Such findings would not be interfered with in ordinary manner without showing same to be erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and fanciful or having caused serious injustice.