COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI VS OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD.
2007 P T D 2297
2007 P T D 2297
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI
Versus
Messrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1089-1095 of 2002, decided on 23/02/2006.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 7-2-2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi ire I.T.As. Nos.633, 337 of 1991)
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.163(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Avoidance of doubt taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion---Counsel for department/appellant had contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same court, without taking into consideration the effect of subsection (2) of S.163 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whereas points involved ire both the cases were distinct from each other---Prima facie, distinction existed in both the cases and the High Court could have disposed of those cases independently taking into consideration the effect of S.163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as will as other provisions of law---Appeals were allowed, impugned judgment was set aside and cases were remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeals afresh, expeditiously.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondent.
Raja Muhammad Irshad, Dy Attorney-General on Court notice.
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAHDHRY, C.J.-_--These appeals by leave of the Court have been filed against the judgment dated 7th February, 2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for appellant, learned Deputy Attorney-General who appeared en Court notice and the Member Tax, Central Board of Revenue contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same High Court dated 24th February, 1999 passed in I.T.A. No. 1921 of 1997 without taking into consideration the effect of subsection (2) of section 163 of .the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. According to them the points involved in both the cases are distinct from each other.
3. When we inquired from them whether the counsel for the Department had consented for the disposal of appeals and now they can agitate the carne points. It was explained by theta as a question of law is involved, therefore, the consent given by the Department counsel will be meaningless under the facts and circumstances, of the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is a distinction in both the cases and learned High Court may have disposed of these cases independently, taking into consideration the effect of section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance as well an other provisions of law i.e. section 241 read with rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.
Thus for the foregoing reasons appeals are allowed, impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2002 is set aside and gases are remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeal afresh expeditiously, as far ash possible within a period of three months keeping in view the above observation.
H.B.T./C-4/SCAppeals allowed.