FAZAL DIN & SONS (PVT.) LTD. through share-holder and Chief Executive VS TAXATION OFFICER, 2008 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1802 (2008)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----S. 122(1)(5)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitu tional petition---Contention of the assessee was that department had issued notices for re-assessment without observing the provisions of S.122(5) read with S.122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Counsel for Revenue undertook before High Court to get the notice issued from the department under the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and High Court further directed that concerned authority shall afford fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner---Grievance of the petitioner having been redressed, constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner.

Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.

ORDER

ALI AKHTAR QURESHI, J.----This order shall dispose of this writ petition as well as the concerned Writ Petitions Nos.6605 of 2008, 6731 of 2008 and 6732 of 2008 as identical question of law and facts are involved.

2. Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of a Notices Nos.AUDIT-02-LTU/4520, dated 27-5-2008 and No.AUDIT-02-LTU/4521, dated 27-5-2008, under section 11(1)(b) and 122(5), issued for the tax year 2007 ,(in Writ Petition No.6845 of 2008); (2) Notice No.AUDIT-02-LTU/3821 etc., dated 11-4-2008, 18-4-2008 and 27-5-2008 for the tax year 2003 (in Writ Petition No.6605 of 2008); (3) Notice No.AUDIT-02-LTU/3837 etc., dated 14-4-2008, 18-4-2008 and 27-5-2008 of the tax year 2006 (in Writ Petition No.6732 of 2008) and Notice No.AUDIT-02-LTU/3824 etc., dated 11-4-2008, 18-4-2008 and 27-5-2008 for the tax years 2004 (in Writ Petition No.6731 of 2008 respectively and has prayed or their cancellation. In response of the notice issued by this Court, the learned Legal Advisor (Revenue) appeared in the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent-Department has issued the aforesaid notices for the re-assessment of the return filed by the petitioner but without observing the provisions of section 122(5) read with 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. In presence of both the learned counsel for the parties, it was agreed that the respondent-Department shall issue the required notice and will also provide fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue undertook to issue the notice under the relevant provisions of the Ordinance ibid and the case was adjourned for 24-6-2008. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application under Order XVII, rule 6, C.P.C. for amendment of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent also appeared and placed on record they copy of the noticed issue to the petitioner under section 122(5), read with section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and further submitted that the petitioner instead of appearing before the concerned authority, has filed this application for amendment of the writ petition. The grievance voiced by the petitioner through the instant constitutional petition has been redressed by the respondent-Department and any controversy, if involved in the case is to be decided by the Authority concerned. The case, as informed by the learned counsel for the Revenue, is fixed for 27-6-2008 so the petitioner shall appear before the concerned authority to prosecute his case. It is reiterated that the concerned authority shall afford fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner is redressed and nothing is left so these petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs.

C.M. No.1402 of 2008

As the main case has been disposed of this C.M. has become infructuous and disposed of as such.

M.B.A./F-26/LOrder accordingly.