FARIDA BIBI VS I.T.O., CIRCLE-14, LAHORE
2001 P T D 2137
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
Mst. FARIDA BIBI
Versus
I.T.O., CIRCLE‑14, LAHORE
C.T.R. No.73 of 1993, decided on 12/02/2001.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case‑‑‑Hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued the case‑‑‑High Court, therefore, was not bound to answer the questions referred, if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent.
Dada Bhai H. Mamma & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1967) 16 Tax 43 and M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v: Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188 ref.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑--The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following questions for our consideration and reply:
(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was validly vested with jurisdiction to make the assessment?
(ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in declaring to entertain the additional ground taken up before in concerning the proper approval of the JAC for the addition to the assessee's income under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and whether the approval was taken in accordance with law?
(iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal for upholding the decision of the ITO, that the income invested in the Plaza at 15‑Center, New Garden Town, Lahore, had in law arisen in the area of jurisdiction of the ITO who completed the assessment and whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the same?
2. Learned counsel for the Revenue by relying upon a reported judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High. Court in re Dada Bahi H. Mama & Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1967) 16‑Tax 43) states that iii absence of the assessee at whose instance the aforesaid questions were referred, no opinion can be expressed by this Court.
3. In the said judgment their Lordships interpreted the provisions of section 66(5) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 which are similar to section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance under which the aforesaid questions have been referred to us. In the view of: their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further, that the hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the questions had been referred to the Court was present and had argued its case. Therefore, their Lordships found that they were not bound to answer the questions referred to it if the party at whose instance the questions had been referred, had remained absent. Reference in that respect was made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in re: M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 18).
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lord6hips in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above questions have been referred. We will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly.
M.B.A./F‑35/LOrder accordingly.