COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD VS Messrs NUSRAT CORPORATION, FAISALABAD, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2660 (2006)

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

----S. 66-A---Erroneous assessment and assessment prejudicial to interest of Revenue---Both such requirements must be satisfied separately for exercise of power under S.66-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

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

----S. 136---Reference to High Court---Impugned order alleged to be lacking reasons on factual aspects of controversy decided by Tribunal---Validity---Such matter not open to High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.136 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---No question of law arose from impugned order---High Court dismissed reference in circumstances.

Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant.

ORDER

This order shall dispose of three I.T.A. No.203 of 1998, I.T.A. No. 204 of 1998 and I.T.A. No.205 of 1998 filed under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ("Ordinance") against the order, dated 3-3-1998 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that has set aside the order, dated 27-12-1997 by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed under section 66-A of the Ordinance in respect of assessment year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The learned Tribunal has given the following reasons in its order that is impugned in the present appeal:

"(i) No proper orders were passed in this case and section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance only applies to an order passed by the Assessing Officer.

(ii) There was no error in the otherwise non-existing order. As such, the requirements were not fulfilled.

(iii) It was the Board who interfered with the provisions of law otherwise the assessee was fully covered by provisions of subsection (4) of section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance. All the appeals succeed as above."

2. Before this Court the appellant, Commissioner Income Tax and Wealth Tax, Faisalabad Zone, has raised the following question:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to vacate order under section 66-A ignoring the fact that assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue?"

3. It is noted that the question framed by the appellant converts the distinct criterion of "erroneous assessment" for exercising power under section 66-A of the Ordinance into a consequence of the other independent ingredient under the provision, namely, "prejudice to the interest of Revenue". This is contrary to the plain language of the section and acknowledges the failure of the appellants record to satisfy the two requirements taken separately.

4. The tenor of the aforesaid question framed in the appeal before, us is to challenge the impugned order by the learned Tribunal as to the adequacy of its reasons on factual aspects of the controversy decided by it. Enquiry into such matter is not open to us in the exercise of our jurisdiction under section 136 of the Ordinance. Accordingly the appeals fail to specify for our determination any question of law arising from the order made by the learned Appellate Tribunal. All the appeals stand dismissed.

S.A.K./C-43/LAppeals dismissed.