COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT VS Messrs POPULAR INDUSTRIES S.I.E., SIALKOT
2005 P T D 1038
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandarand Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT
versus
Messrs POPULAR INDUSTRIES S.I.E., SIALKOT
Income Tax Appeal No.518 of 1998, decided on /01/.
31st August, 2004. Income Tax Act (XXXI of 1979)---
----Ss. 59 & 136--Appeal to High Court---Question arising out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,was "whether or not under the facts and circumstances of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to accept assessee's returned income under Self-Assessment Scheme when definite information was available regarding less declaration of net profit"---Issue of a return filed by an assessee qualified for acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme, was necessarily based upon facts and it did not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between Revenue and assessee---Every question of law need not be referred to High Court and that only a question having some substance needed to be referred---Question raised in the case was neither of law nor had arisen a substantial legal controversy between parties---High Court declined to answer said question.
Shahid Jameel Khan for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 31st August, 2004.
ORDER
In this appeal by the Revenue under section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 following question of law is stated to have arisen out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore, dated 25-5-1998:--
Whether or not under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in directing to accept the assessee s returned income under SAS when definite information regarding less declaration of net profit ratio vis-a-vis Sales turnover.
2.The respondent-assessee is an unregistered firm and during the period relevant to the assessment year 1992-93 derived income from export of Pressure Cookers. A return was filed to declare income at Rs.1,88,350. However,itscasewasselectedfortotalauditunderpara. 4(ii) of the scheme for the reason that net profit ratio to turnover at 0.7% was grossly low as compared to the declared net profit ratio to turnover at 3.4% for the assessment year 1990-91.
3.After selection of the case original assessment was finalized under section 62 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at Rs.7,89,350. However, it was set aside by the learned CIT(Appeals), Sialkot directing the Assessing Officer to again consider the eligibility of the return for acceptance under self-assessment scheme. The Assessing Officer however, repeated the same treatment to the assessee.
4.On appeal in the second round the learned CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee for acceptance of return under Self-Assessment Scheme. Learned Tribunal however, by way of the impugned order allowed the appealfiled by the assessee on the round that if a comparison hadto be made then it should have been made with the net profit ratio for the assessment year 1991-92 instead of assessment year 1990-91. Hence this further appeal.
5.After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we will decline to answer the aforesaid question. The issue if a return filed by an assessee qualified for acceptance under self-assessment scheme is necessarily based uponfacts. Also it does not involve or raise a substantial legal controversy between the Revenue and the assessee in a recent opinion expressed on 14-11-2000 in CTR No.20/91 in re: CIT v. Messrs Imminam International, Lahore, we have discussed the issue at length in the light ofthe judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in re: Lungia (Sylhet) Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dacca Circle, Dacca (1970 SCMR 872). 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 is neither of law nor have raised a substantial legal controversy between the parties and therefore, we will decline to answer. 6.Appeal dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./C-43/LAppeal dismissed.