COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-C, LAHORE VS MESSRS JINNAH CADET SCHOOL, LAHORE
2002 P T D 462
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-C, LAHORE
versus
Messrs JINNAH CADET SCHOOL, LAHORE
P. T. R. No. 127 of 2001, decided on 16/10/2001.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----Ss.131(4) & 136---Reference to High Court---Admission of additional evidence---Nothing had been brought on record to show that objection against the admission of additional evidence without fulfilling the requirements of S.131(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was ever raised before the Tribunal---Question framed was neither raised before the Tribunal nor it was ruled upon and it did not arise as a natural consequence of the Tribunal's order---High Court refused to entertain the question as framed.
Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---Through this application under section 136 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, C.I.T. Zone-C, Lahore claims that following question of law has arisen out of an order of the Tribunal recorded on 14-11-2060 in the case of an individual deriving income from running a private educational institution namely Messrs Jinnah Cadet School:--
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned I.T.A.T. was justified to uphold the order of the learned A.C.C. (Appeals) who has accepted the documents/record in the absence of any sufficient reasons/cause which prevented the assessee from producing the evidence the record before the Assessing Officer as envisaged in section 131(4) of the Ordinance, 1979?"
2. According to the statement of the case as against returned income of the assessee at Rs.40,000 an assessment was framed on assessable income of Rs.63,500. In the process the rate of fee was enhanced from Rs.400 as claimed to Rs.525 though the number of students at 190 was accepted.
3. The learned First Appellate Authority agreed with the assessee that she had charged a sum of Rs.400 to Rs.425 from the students. Accordingly the annual estimated receipts were directed to be fixed at Rs.10,26,000 as against the earlier estimation at the sum of Rs.12,97,000.
4. On departmental appeal, the learned Tribunal refused to interfere on any count. Thereafter the prayer of the Revenue to refer the aforesaid question of law to this Court under section 136(1) was also refused on 21-5-2001 on the ground that no question of law was involved nor arose from their order.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the view that the question as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Nothing has been brought on record to show that objection against the admission of additional evidence without fulfilling the requirements of section 131(4) of the Ordinance, 1979 was ever raised before the Tribunal. It hardly needs emphasis that under section 136 only a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal can possibly be a moot point before this Court. A question of law arises only if it was raised, mooted and ruled upon by the Tribunal or else it arose as a natural consequence of the order of the Tribunal.
6. From the impugned order it is very much evident that this question was not raised before them nor it was ruled upon by them. Also it does not arise as a natural consequence of the said order. Therefore, we will refuse to entertain the question as framed.
7. Dismissed in limine.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C-127/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.