Sh. ZAFAR IQBAL VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE-01, SIALKOT, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 60 (2005)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI 1979)---

---- Ss. 108 & 136---Appeal to High Court---Penalty---Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal has the discretion to reduce, vary or change the quantum of penalty---Where the Appellate Tribunal had exercised its discretion by reducing the penalty to a very reasonable (in fact insignificant) amount and assessee had admitted that his default attracted imposition of penalty but had only sought reduction of. penalty to a token amount of Rs. 10 per day discretion had already been exercised by the Tribunal and no ground or question of law as to the absence of discretion in the Tribunal had either been raised in the appeal or framed therein, request made by counsel for adjournment was -not reasonable as there was no ground to adjourn the case which was denied by the High Court and appeal was dismissed.

Nasir Gillani for Appellant.

Mian Yusuf Umar for Respondents.

ORDER

Against the reduction of penalty by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore, the assessee has filed this appeal on the principal ground that:

"As per the default and behaviour of the assessee only a token penalty not exceeding Rs. 10 per day in view of the quantum and nature of default should have been imposed by the Assessing Officer. "

"And that although the grounds raised herein were raised before the learned. Tribunal but had not been considered and decided by the Tribunal. "

2. This appeal has been in motion stage since 2000. Mr. Nasir Gillani, Advocate has appeared on behalf of Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant to seek adjournment. The examination of the order dated 1-3-2000 of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reveals that none of the grounds pleaded in the present appeal were considered or decided or even taken note of by the learned Tribunal. In view thereof it is obvious that the grounds raised in the manner cannot be treated as the questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. Furthermore it is probably because of this reason that the appellant has neither framed nor stated the questions of law in the memo. of appeal for consideration of this Court.

3. Furthermore it is now well-settled that it is the discretion of the First Appellate Authority or that of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reduce, vary or change the quantum of penalty. In the present case the learned Tribunal exercised its discretion by reducing the penalty to a very reasonable (in fact insignificant). amount. The appellant in the principal ground (a) and the other grounds in fact admits that the default of the assessee attracted imposition of penalty but has only sought reduction of penalty to a token amount of Rs. 10 per day. The discretion has already been exercised by the learned Tribunal and no ground or question of law as to the absence of discretion in the Tribunal has either been raised in the appeal or framed therein. The request made for adjournment is not reasonable as there is no ground to adjourn this case particularly in view of what has been observed above. The request for adjournment is thus denied. This appeal is dismissed.

M.B.A./Z-115/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.