RUPAFIL LTD. VS TAXATION OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE
2009 P T D 1557
[Lahore High Court]
Before Khawaja Farooq Saeed, J
Messrs RUPAFIL LTD. and 2 others
Versus
TAXATION OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE
Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2003, heard on 29/05/2009.
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
---Ss. 122 & 221---Application of S.122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Scope---Provisions of S.122 of the Ordinance are inapplicable on any proceedings which are initiated before its operation---Principles.
Provisions of section 122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are inapplicable on any proceedings which are initiated before its operation.
The main reason, inter alia, behind is that it talks of and deals with "tax year" which is a new connotation as against "assessment year" used prior to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Moreover, tax year has a different charging period from that assessment year. Furthermore, under the new Ordinance of 2001, the rectification of mistake is from an order passed by him which by virtue of the said new Ordinance means the new assessing authority, "the Commissioner". Meaning thereby he can rectify an order passed by a Commissioner.
Since the Commissioner was not an assessing authority in the old law and the order was passed by "Taxation Officer" it is not an order passed by him. The same, therefore, cannot be rectified by the Commissioner. This hardly needs any mentioning that even after delegation of power by him to a subordinate officer, the said officer does not figure within the language of section 221 as he also was not an authority under erstwhile Income Tax Ordinance and the order is not passed by him.
Writ Petition No.8683 of 2003 (FARPTD177-9.DOC) ref. Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Zone-C (Legal),
Lahore v. Messrs Idrees Cloth House, Lahore 2008 PTD 1420 rel.
Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 29th May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J.---The petitioner aggrieved of issuance of notice under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This Court for the reasons recorded and observations made in the detailed judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.8683 of 2003 does not find any reason for a detailed order. However, the revision which is involved in this case is section 221 as against section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The judgment in terms of (2008 PTD 1420) re: "Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Zone-C (Legal), Lahore v. Messrs Idrees Cloth House, Lahore which has been relied upon in the said writ petition has dealt with section 122. However, it has been held that the provisions of the new Ordinance, 2001, mentioned (supra) are inapplicable on any proceedings which are initiated before its operation.
2. The main reason, inter alia, behind is that it talks of and deals with "tax year" which is a new connotation as against "assessment year" used prior to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Moreover, tax year has a different charging period from that assessment year. Furthermore, under the new Ordinance of 2001, the rectification of mistake is from an order passed by him which by virtue of the said new Ordinance means the new assessing authority, "the Commissioner". Meaning thereby he can rectify an order passed by a Commissioner.
3. Since the Commissioner was not an assessing authority in the old law and the order was passed by "Taxation Officer" it is not an order passed by him. The same, therefore, cannot be rectified by the Commissioner. This hardly needs any mentioning that even after delegation of power by him to a subordinate officer, the said officer does not figure within the language of section 221 as he also was not an authority under 'erstwhile Income Tax Ordinance and the order is not passed by him.
4. The outcome as already mentioned above is obvious. This writ petition, stand allowed and- consequent proceedings on the basis of the notices which are herby set aside shall also crumble to ground on the touchstone of the judgment referred as PLD 1987 Quetta 235 re: Syed Allah Dost v. Haji Muhammad Alam.
M.B.A./R-38/LOrder accordingly.