COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD VS Messrs GULSHAN TRADING CO., FAISALABAD, 2002 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2829 (2002)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 59, 62 & 136(2)---Reference to High Court---Self-Assessment---Selection of case for total audit---Appellate Authority and Tribunal found that case of assessee could not be selected for total audit ---Validity-- Return filed by an assessee, whether qualified for acceptance under self- assessment scheme, was necessarily a question of fact---Such .question did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between revenue and assessee---High Court declined to answer the reference.

C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 and The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 fol.

(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 136---Reference to High Court---Scope---Every question of law need not be referred to High Court---Only a question having some substance need be so referred.

The Lungla (Sythet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 fol.

Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue.

ORDER

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---The assessee-respondent an AOP filed a return of its income under self-assessment scheme for the assessment year 1994-95. On selection of its case for total audit the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame an assessment under section 62 of the Income Tax, Ordinance; 1979.

2. The learned First Appellate Authority/CIT (Appeals) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration of the claim of the assessee that his case could not be plucked out of the self-assessment scheme.

3. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal found in favour of the assessee by holding that its case could not be selected for total audit.

4. Thereafter, the prayer of the Revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of their order was refused by the Tribunal:---

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to direct acceptance of assessee's return under Self-Assessment Scheme?"

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue at pre admission stage, we are not inclined to entertain this reference application. In C.T.R. No. 192 of 1997 this Court concluded that the issue if a return filed by an assessee qualified for acceptance under self- assessment scheme was necessarily a question of fact. Further that such question did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and the assessee. In reaching that conclusion we relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: The Lungla (Sylhet); Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca (1970 SCMR 872).

6. The Hon'ble apex Court in that case held that every question of law need not be referred to the High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be so referred. The question as framed, in view of the reasons recorded in C.T.R. No.192 of 1997 we will hold that is neither of law nor has raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and, therefore, we will decline to answer.

7. Answer declined.

S.A.K./C-172/LReference declined.