COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE VS MUHAMMAD AAMER
2001 P T D 2274
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, ZONE‑A, LAHORE
Versus
MUHAMMAD AAMER
C.T.R. No.47 of 1993, decided on 06/12/2000.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.136 & 13(1), (2 j, proviso‑‑‑Addition‑‑‑Two consecutive approvals‑‑ Reference to High Court‑ ‑‑Assessing Officer violated the mandatory provisions of the proviso to S.13(1) & S.13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑'Tribunal was justified to delete the addition.
C.I.T. v. Ch. Muhammad Ahmed Goreya, Advocate ' C.T.R. No. 179 of 1991; Messrs Khurram Sagir Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Zone‑A, Lahore C.T.R. No. 107 of 1991 and Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280 rel.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑--The Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue has stated the case framing following questions for our consideration and answer:‑‑‑
"(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the. Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition because of the fact that the Income‑tax Officer violated the mandatory provisions of the proviso to section 13(1) and section 13(2)?
(ii)Whether in the event that Income‑tax Officer's jurisdiction is a creation of the statute and he is not a judicial Court, his action, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is not void even if the provisions of the proviso to section 13(1) and section 13(2) are of a directory nature'?"
2. At the outset, the learned counsel agrees that in view of our recent opinion expressed in C. T. R. No. 179 of 1991, dated 13‑11‑2000 re: C.I.T. v. Ch. Muhammad Ahmed Goreya, Advocate, the answer to the question is to be in the affirmative. In that order a reference was also made to an earlier opinion expressed by us in C.T.R. No.107 of 1991, dated 26‑10‑2000 re: Messrs Khurram Sagir Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., Zone‑A, Lahore. While concluding that the provisions of section 13 of the Income‑tax Officer at the relevant time contemplated two consecutive approvals one after the other a reference was made to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court recorded in re: Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Muhammad Kassim A 2000 PTD 280.
3. For the reasons recorded in the afore‑said reference, our answer to the above question referred in this case is also in the affirmative.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑77/LReference answered: