Mian HANIF MUNNOO VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE, 2003 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 77 (2001)

(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑10‑2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in P.T.Rs. Nos. 50 to 53 of 1988).

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 136‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against judgment of High Court passed, in reference‑‑ Amount mentioned in demand notice‑‑‑Petitioner agreed to pay such amount with a prayer that department be directed not to charge any penalty or additional tax or initiate any criminal proceedings' against them‑‑‑Department did not oppose such request‑‑‑Supreme Court with the consent of parties converted petition into appeal and disposed of the same with direction to the petitioner to deposit such amount within specified time, failing which the petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2001.

ORDER

IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 5‑10‑2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Reference Applications Nos. 50/88, 51/88, 52/88 and 53/88 filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not want to press the petitions and to end the controversy concedes to the claim of the department and is ready to make payment as has been demanded in the notice, dated 16‑2‑1986 i.e. Rs.17,76,462 towards full and final settlement of the account in this behalf. However, he seeks indulgence of the Court that the department be directed not to charge any penalty or additional tax or to initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator is present and stated that the department has no objection if the petitions are disposed of in view of the statement so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. We have heard both of them and have also gone through the contents of the notice, dated 16‑2‑1986. Since the petitioners have conceded to the claim of the respondent, therefore, in view of the above position we direct that let the petitioners deposit the above amount on or before 30‑6‑2001, failing which the above petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. We also observe that as the petitioners have conceded the claim of the department, therefore, we are inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners keeping in view concessional statement of the learned counsel for the department that in relation to the above notice no criminal proceedings will be initiated against the petitioners nor any additional tax or penalty will be recovered from them in future. Thus, under this arrangement, instant petitions with the consent of, the parties are converted into appeals and disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.

S.A.K./H‑73/SC Order accordingly.