COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJRANWALA VS DAWN METAL WARE INDUSTRIES LTD., SIALKOT
2001 P T D 2327
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, GUJRANWALA
Versus
Messrs DAWN METALWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., SIALKOT
C.T.R. No.43 of 1994, decided on 30/04/2001.
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Liability to income‑tax‑‑‑Brought forward loss‑‑‑Adjustment‑‑‑Liability to income‑tax is always reached after adjustment of brought forward loss.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑‑Question of eligibility of an assessee to qualify for Self‑Assessment Scheme of a particular year normally did not give rise to any question of law and. High Court declined to answer the question on the round that it was not of substance to be answered.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The following question is stated to have arisen out of their order dated 11‑10‑1990:‑‑‑
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned income‑tax Appellate Tribunal is justified to interpret the words and phrase 'Tax payable on last assessed income as tax determined after the adjustment of brought forward loss for the purposes of comparison so as to qualify for exemption from Total Audit, in the presence of the specific definitions of the words 'Tax payable' and 'Assessed income' as contained in Notes 4 and .2(a) to para. 6 of C.B.R.'s Circular No.9 of 1987, dated 26‑10‑1987."
2. The appellant, a private limited company, filed a return under Self Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1987‑88 to disclose net profits at Rs.1,05,546. The Assessing Officer after plucking the return out of the Scheme made a round addition of Rs.1,20,000 in the trading account. On first appeal it was directed that the return should be accepted ‑under Self‑Assessment Scheme as the case was exempt from total audit. The department failed before .the Tribunal where it was held that in terms of Self‑Assessment Scheme issued for the aforesaid assessment years, the return filed by the assessee qualified inasmuch as the tax paid on declared income, for the year under review was more than the tax payable on the latest assessed income. The Tribunal noted that the view adopted by C.I.T. (Appeals) was correct as he had found that tax payable after B.F. Loss had come to nil while in the year under review the tax payable stood at Rs.16,673. ,
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we will decline to answer the aforesaid question for a number‑ of reasons. Firstly the interpretation of the Tribunal whereby they maintained the order of CIT (Appeals) is absolutely clear. There can hardly be any challenge to the proposition that liability to income‑tax is always reached after adjustment of BF loss. The distinction between the word "tax paid" and "payable" is also too obvious to be supported either from case law or by citing opinion of eminent jurists.
4. Lastly in a number of recent opinions, we have concluded that the question of eligibility of an assessee to qualify for Self‑Assessment Scheme of a particular year normally does not give rise to any question of law. In C.T.R. No.20 of 1991 re: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International. Lahore, we 8 refused to answer a similar question posed by the Revenue on the ground that it ,was not of substance to be answered by this Court.
5. For the various other reasons given in the aforesaid reference we will decline to answer the aforesaid question.
Answer declined.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑88/LAnswer declined.