COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD VS MUSHTAQ ALI CHEEMA C/o M.S.C. TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
2007 P T D 833
[Lahore High Court]
Before Sh. Azmat Saeed and Syed Hamid Ali Shah, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD
Versus
MUSHTAQ ALI CHEEMA C/o M.S.C. TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
I.T.As. Nos.103, 106 and 107 of 1999, heard 16th November, 2006.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.136---Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.3(2)(c)---Appeal to High Court---Appellate Tribunal finding assesses not to have received salary from both companies as their Director, but had worked only for one company during the relevant year---Validity---Such factual conclusion could not be interfered with in appeal by High Court---No question of law having arisen from impugned order, High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.
1998 (78) Tax 179 (Trib.) and C.I.T., Faisalabad v. Waseem Ashfaq C/o Ashfaq Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.) I.T.A. No.427 of 1999 rel.
Khadim Hussain Zahid for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 2006.
JUDGMENT
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---This judgment shall dispose of I.T.As. Nos.103, 106 and 107 of 1999 as common question of law is involved in these appeals.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal under section 136(1) of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are that for the assessment year 1991-92 the income of the respondent being Director of MSC Textile (Pvt.) Limited was assessed at Rs.90,480 vide order dated 12-1-1992. However, on examination of the record by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner the respondent was found as director of Messrs MSC Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. and Messrs Shafi Textile (Pvt.) Limited, resultantly, assessment order dated 12-1-1991 was cancelled and re-assessment under sections 62/66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was completed vide order dated 15-6-1995. The respondent being aggrieved of the re-assessment filed first appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals), which was dismissed. The respondent filed second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of on 27-11-1998, with the following observations:---
"3 ..The fact of the case for the year 1991-92 including the argument that assessee has not received any salary for this year makes it clear that the assessee was whole time working for one company only. Following the ratio of the judgment reported as (1998) 78 Tax 179. I consider the disallowance of perquisites for the year 1991-92 as unjustified. For 1992-93, the assessee has conceded having worked for the other company. The appeal for this year is disallowed. The I.T.A. is directed to allow the perquisites as an exempt item and calculate the tax accordingly for 1991-92 only."
3. The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, through the instant appeal has claimed that following question of law has arisen out of the impugned order of the Tribunal:--
"Whether in the prevailing fact and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that notwithstanding his being a director in more than one company, the assessee was a whole time employee of one of them within the meaning and for the purpose of clause (2)(c) of Rule 3 of Income Tax Rules, 1982?"
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Although he has attempted his best to support the maintainability of the appeals by addressing the issue from various angles, yet his arguments cannot prevail in view of the preposition having already been Settled through the judgment reported as 1998 (78) Tax 179 (Trib.) and in I.T.A. No.427 of 1999 C.I.T., Faisalabad v. Waseem Ashfaq C/o Ashfaq Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.), wherein this Court held as under:---
"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 appeal."
5. Therefore, following the dictum laid down in the above cited cases, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27-11-1998 directing the I.T.O. to allow the perquisites as an exempt item and calculate the tax accordingly for 1991-92 only is neither referable nor a question of law allegedly arising therefrom can be a subject matter of appellate jurisdiction of this Court vested in it under the provisions of section 136 of the repeals Ordinance, 1979.
6. For the foregoing, these appeals are dismissed accordingly.
S.A.K./C-1/LAppeals dismissed.