COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-B, LAHORE VS LAHORE AMERICAN SOCIETY SCHOOL, LAHORE
2001 P T D 1425
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑B, LAHORE
versus
Messrs LAHORE AMERICAN SOCIETY SCHOOL, LAHORE
C.T.R. No.365 of 1991, decided on 20/11/2000.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to the High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑‑Material on the basis of which the First Appellate Authority found for the assessee and for similar reasons the Tribunal maintained these facts‑‑‑No legal controversy could be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal.
Kh. Muhammad Saeed for the Revenue
Nemo for Respondent
ORDER
SIKANDAR, J:‑‑‑The Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax a has referred to following questions of law for our opinion
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified to uphold the exemption to the assessee under clauses (86) and (94) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979."
2. The respondent an assessee registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is engaged in running School. For the three years involved viz. 1975‑76, 1976‑77 and 1977‑78, the claimed exemption under clauses (86) and (103) of Second Schedule of the Ordinance, 1979 was refused by the Assessing Officer. He had two reasons to assign. Firstly that the institution was running in profit and had been declaring loss/income earned from that institution. Secondly same of the staff members were foreigners who were being paid big salaries.
3. Learned First Appellate Authority, however, directed acceptance of claim for exemption with reference to clauses (86) and (94) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Learned Tribunal maintained the order of the First Appellate Authority.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are bf the view that the issue involved does not raise of legal controversy. The Assessing Officer found that in terms of clause (86) the school being run by the assessee was not solely established for educational purposes and that the assessee was declaring income/profit from the institution. Both the learned First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal were of the view that there was no question of declaring any income inasmuch the school run by the assessee was receiving grants from various local and foreigner agencies and that if these grants had not been received, the school run by the assessee could not have functioned. These findings of fact do not appear to have been controverted in any manner. Therefore, the only issue in such situation would have been if the Tribunal had sufficient material available before into reach the conclusions drawn by it. Since, the material on the basis of which the learned First Appellate Authority found for the assessee and for similar reasons the learned Tribunal maintained these facts no legal controversy can be said to have arisen .out of the order of the Tribunal.
Question as framed, as observed, before, does not give rise to a legal controversy.
Accordingly, we will refuse to answer the question.
M.B.A./C‑59/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Answer declined