COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD VS Messrs KAMIL COTTON INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., TOBA TEK SINGH, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2283 (2005)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 108(b)---Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.61---Provisions of S.108(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted in the event of non-compliance of R.61, Income Tax Rules, 1982.

(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 139 & 165---Provisions of S.139, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 read with S.165 of the said Ordinance contain ample authority to make rules and to provide for a time limit for filing of statement contemplated therein---Fact that 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 of such rule through subordinate legislation---Mentioning of certain section 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.

Khurram Naveed Khan on behalf of Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 4th April, 2005.

ORDER

In this Tax Reference under section 136(2) of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the petitioner/Commissioner of Income Tax Faisalabad claims that following questions of law arise out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 21-8-2000:---

(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 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. Earlier these questions were placed before the Tribunal which refused their reference to this Court under section 136(1) of the late Ordinance by way of their order, dated 21-3-2001.

3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner/revenue we are of the view that the issues in hand already stand resolved by a recent judgment of this Bench recorded on 17-4-2003 in I.T.A. No.402 of 1998 re. Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Companies Zone, Faisalabad v. Messrs Asim Textiles Mills Limited, Faisalabad. The relevant part of that judgment contained in para. 11 read as under:---

"As observed earlier, the provisions of section 139 read with power of C.B.R. to make rules 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 of such rule through subordinate legislation. Similarly the 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."

4. For the various reasons considered in that order we will return al negative answer to question No.3 while questions Nos.1 and 2 as framed do not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal.

5. Disposed of.

M.B.A./C-94/LOrder accordingly.