Messrs HYBRID TECHNICS (PVT.) LTD. VS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1918 (2004)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 55, 80-C & 136 & Sched. II, Part 4, cl.(9)---Option for_, assessment---Appeal before High Court---Assessee, for the assessment year 1995-96, which was for the income year 1994-95, was assessed under provisions of S.80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Contention of assessee was that according to Sched-II, Part 4, cl.(9) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was amended through Finance Act, 1996, option had been given to assessee, either to be assessed under the provisions of S.80-C or under the normal law---Validity---Before the said amendment, no option was available to assessee except to be assessed under S.80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---As case of assessee was for the year prior to the amendment which had no retrospective effect, S.80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was inapplicable to the case of assessee.

Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant.

Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th December, 2004.

ORDER

For the assessment year 1995-96, which was for the income year, 1994-95, the appellant was assessed under the provisions of section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance. The question posed in the present reference, is as follows:--

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer was legally correct that assessee liable to be tax under section 80-C once he had filed Return in compliance to section 55 of the Ordinance."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that according to Schedule-II, part. 4, Clause 9, which was amended through Finance Act, 1996, the option has been given to the assessee, either to be assessed under the provisions of section 80C, or under the normal law; the view taken by the DCIT as also by the Tribunal, that the option was not available for the relevant year, is erroneous.

We are afraid that the above contention has no force; the position is otherwise. Before the above amendment, there was no option available to the appellant, except to be assessed under section 80-C of _B the Ordinance, as the case of the appellant is for the year prior to the amendment, which has no retrospective effect and thus was inapplicable to the appellant's case. Answered accordingly.

H.B.T./H-72/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.