COMMISSIONER OF INCGME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD VS WASEEM ASHFAQ

2007 P T D 2396

2007 P T D 2396

[Lahore High Court]

Before Mian Saqib Nisar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ

COMMISSIONER OF INCGME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD

Versus

WASEEM ASHFAQ

I.T.A. No.427 of 1999, decided on 19/04/2006.

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----Ss. 12 & 133---Allowances, liability to income-tax---Reference to High Court---Case of appellant/Department was that Director of assessee company being the Director of more than one companies, allowances, specified in order-in-original, drawn by him from different companies, were liable to income tax---Appeal filed by Director of the Company, was dismissed, but when matter came before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was found "that Director at one time was serving only one company and the concept of part time employee was not applicable in the case"---Question that Tribunal had misread the record in reaching said conclusion would not arise out of the order and that .was not even the question formulated in the appeal---Factual conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, that assessee was the Director of only one company, could not be interfered with in appeal---High Court declined to answer question raised in the appeal.

Khadim Hussain Zahid for Appellant.

ORDER

It is the case of the department that the respondent was the Director of more than one companies and, therefore, the allowances, specified in the order-in-original drawn by him from different companies, were liable to income-tax. The respondent preferred an appeal, which was dismissed, but when the matter came before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held as follows:---

"The above detail makes it clear that the Director at one time was serving only one company and the concept of part time employee is not applicable in this case. Even otherwise in the presence of the judgment reported as (1998) 78 Tax 179 (Trib.) wherein this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal, there is no justification for making additions."

2. The question now propounded before this Court, that the Tribunal has misread the record in reaching the above conclusion, does not arise out of the order and this is not even the question formulated in the appeal. The factual conclusion drawn by the ITAT, that the respondent was the Director of only one company, thus, cannot be interfered with in, the present appeal, therefore, we decline to answer the question raised in this I.T.A.

H.B.T./C-19/LOrder accordingly.