COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, ZONE-C, LAHORE VS Messrs MINHAS AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2338 (2005)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss.66-A & 136---Reference to High Court---Assessee had filed return of income-tax under the Universal Assessment Scheme, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer---Inspecting Additional Commissioner, subsequently, in the purported exercise of S.66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 cancelled the assessment and remanded the case to Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment---Tribunal's order made it clear that the same turned on facts---Basis of the Tribunal's order was that the I.A.C. did not apply his independent mind and did not take into consideration the evidence furnished by the assessee---Questions referred to. High Court being misconceived and having not arisen from the order of the Tribunal nor requiring any expression of `opinion from the High Court, was dismissed.

Khadim Hussain Zahid for Petitioner.

ORDER

This reference petition arises from an order of the ITAT whereby an appeal filed by the respondent-assessee was accepted.

2. The respondent-assessee filed his return of income tax under the Universal Assessment Scheme, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (IAC) in the purported exercise of powers under section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 cancelled the assessment and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the IAC, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was accepted. The department filed an application before the ITAT praying that the following questions of law be referred to this Court:--

"(i) Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore was justified to cancel the order of the IAC as per Circular No.18 of 1999, as the new assessee was obliged to declare at least 30% of the investment or capital employed in business for the assessment year 1999-2000?

(ii) Whether under the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the IAC could not receive any information from departmental sources including Commissioner of Income Tax an authority under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (repealed) to invoke the provisions of section 66A when the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue?"

4. The ITAT declined the prayer of the department whereupon the present petition for reference has been filed.

5. A perusal of the order of the ITAT makes it clear and obvious that the same turns on facts. The basis of the order is that the IAC did not apply his independent mind and did not take into consideration the evidence furnished by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the above quoted questions are misconceived and do not arise from the order of the ITAT nor require any expression of opinion from this Court. This reference is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.B.A./C-101/LReference dismissed.