IQBAL POULTRY FARM, FAISALABAD VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, FAISALABAD
2001 P T D 1366
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
IQBAL POULTRY FARM, FAISALABAD
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, FAISALABAD
C.T.R. No. 329 of 1991, decided on 23/01/2001.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----Ss. 65, 136 & 166---Re-assessment---Reference to High Court---Scope-- High Court while expressing an opinion had to confine itself to the question of law as framed by the Tribunal as also to the facts as fond by the Tribunal---Question of law as framed by the Tribunal, in the present case, clearly related only to the issue namely "if the reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1977-78 was barred by limitation"---View adopted by the Tribunal to the effect that the case of the assessee being still within the limitation as prescribed by S.34, Income-tax Act, 1922, the invocation of S.65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was justified and in accordance with law, was fully supported by repealing and saving provisions of S.166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---No other issue or question which necessarily depended upon the appraisal of facts could either be introduced or be considered for the purpose of answering the question---High Court answered the legal question by holding that reassessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1977-78 was not barred by limitation in circumstances.
Zia, Haider. Rizvi for Petitioner.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income. Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:---
"Whether on. the facts and in the circumstances of the case the reassessment made by the I.T.O. for 1977-1978 is time-barred and without any legal justification."
2. According to the statement of the case, the respondent, A.O.P, filed returns for the assessment years 1975-1976 to 1977-1978 declaring net income of Rs. 60,000, 2,63,195 and Rs. 1,64,868.50. The source of income was shown as from Poultry farm and, therefore, the claim of exemption from levy of income-tax. Subsequently on the basis of certain information, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for the aforesaid three years by resort to section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. On usual proceedings after issuance of notice on 30-12-1981 the claimed exemption was denied. Also penalty proceedings were directed to be initiated.
3. When the matter reached the Tribunal on the basis of opinion expressed by majority of two members it was held that the Assessing Officer could not reopen an assessment in the first two years viz. 1975-1976, 1976-1977 which had become barred by limitation under the provisions of section 34 of the late Income-tax Act, 1922. However, in respect of year 1977-1978 it was found that reopening of the assessment under section 65 of the Ordinance was totally warranted under subsection (2)(c)(ii) of section 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance- In other words it was concluded that as far as the assessment 1977-1978 was concerned, the case of the assessee being still within the limitation as prescribed by section 34 of the repealed Act the. invocation of the section 65 of the Ordinance was found justified and in accordance with law.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, for the parties, we re of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case against the view adopted by the learned Tribunal. The fact of the matter is that the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of assailing the view adopted by the majority of the members of the Tribunal has attempted to explain the phrase "legal justification" used at the end of the aforesaid question. While questioning the view held by the Tribunal learned counsel has attempted to bring in factual controversies to show that framing of assessment in this year was not justified. However, the facts stated at the bar cannot be considered inasmuch as this Court while expressing an opinion is confined to the question of law as framed by the Tribunal as also the facts as found by it. The question of law as framed clearly relates only to the issue if re-assessment made by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment 1977-1978 was barred by limitation. As said earlier the view. adopted by the Tribunal is fully supported by repealing and saving provisions of section 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance. No other issue or question which necessarily depends upon the appraisal of facts can either be introduced or be considered for the purpose of answering the aforesaid question. ,
5. It will be noted that same question was referred by the Tribunal as it was framed by the assessee and, therefore, it cannot complain that the issue referred for resolution by this Court was not the one which the assessee wanted to be resolved.
6. That being so we will return an affirmative answer to the legal issue by holding that re-assessment made by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment 1977-1978 was not barred by limitation.
M.B.A./I-42/LReference answered.