COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD VS Messrs MULTI COMMERCE (PVT.) LTD.
2005 P T D 1467
[Lahore High Court]
Before Muhammad Sair Ali and Nasim Sikandar, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD
versus
Messrs MULTI COMMERCE (PVT.) LTD.
P.T.R. No.86 of 2003, decided on 04/11/2004.
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----S. 133(4)---Reference to High Court---Application for reference was filed praying for consideration and answer of three questions of law detailed therein which statedly arose out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal---Matter in issue had already stood resolved by High Court in an other Income Tax Appeal and in the light of various reasons in said order passed in that appeal, High Court returned a negative answer to the question detailed in the application for reference---Other questions having no relevancy with order of Appellate Tribunal and grounds stated therein while rejecting Departmental appeal, High Court declined to answer to any of said questions.
I.T.A. No.402 of 1998 ref.
Miana Yousaf Umar for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 2004.
JUDGMENT
NASIMSIKANDAR, J.---Thisisanapplicationundersection 133(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 prayingfor consideration and answer of the following questions of law which statedly arose out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore, dated 18-1-2002:--
"(i)Whether Income Tax Rules, 1982 are subordinate legislation of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
(ii)Whether section 142 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is governing section in respect of Rule 61 respectively of the Income Tax Rules, 1982?
(iii)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to hold that the provisions of section 108(b) are not attracted in the event of non-compliance of Rule 61?"
2.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that the matter in issue already stands resolved by this Court in I.T.A. No.402 of 1998. The operative part of the order in para. 11 reads as under:--
"As observed earlier, the provisions of section 139 read with the power of C.B.R. to make rule under section 165 contain ample authority to make rules and to provide for a time limit for filing of a statement contemplated therein. The fact that the rule did not mention a particular provision under which it required doing of a particular act is not of much relevance when the provision itself either identifies a particular rule or allows a power for making such rule through subordinate legislation. Similarlythe mentioning of certain sections of the Ordinance in some of the Rules will not by itself mean that those rules which do not make reference to any particular provision of the Ordinance lose their efficacy and legal effect."
3.In the light of various reasons stated in the above order we will return a negative answer to question No. 3as framed Questions Nos. 1 and 2 having no relevancy with the order of the Tribunal and the grounds stated therein while rejecting the departmental appeal, we will decline to answer any of them.
H.B.T./C-54/LOrder accordingly.