COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS SAJJAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., 2017 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 999 (2017)

Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---

----Ss. 27, 24 & 3---Appeal to High Court---Exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under S. 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963---Determination as to whether a question of law was made out---Charge of wealth tax---Scope---Question before the High Court was whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that charge of penalty could not be imposed on taxpayer for reason of uncertainty---Validity---Held, that perusal of order of Appellate Tribunal revealed that no question of law had arisen, and the question of law framed in the present appeal under S. 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 by the Department was not substantive---Impugned order had been passed after scrutinizing relevant record and on the basis of valid reasons and did not suffer from legal or factual infirmity---Appeal was decided against the Department, accordingly.

I.C.C. Textile's Case 2001 PTD 1557 ref.

Qamar Farooq for Appellant.

ORDER

C.Ms. Nos.562 and 563 of 2016

The applicant has filed both these applications, one for restoration of the main Appeal which was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 21.05.2015 and the second for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay was not deliberate rather the previous counsel never notified the Department regarding dismissal of Appeal on account of non-prosecution. The applications are supported by affidavits. In the interest of justice, the same are allowed for the reasons mentioned therein as the matter should be decided on merits not on technicalities.

2.The main Appeal is to its original number.

Main Appeal

3.This is an Appeal under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (the "Act").

4.Following question of law is pressed for our opinion, which is asserted to have arisen out of order dated 13.05.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal"):

QUESTION OF LAW

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified to hold the charge of penalty as unjustified for the reason of uncertainty, whereas, the august Court of the country in its authoritative judgment, in I.C.C. Textile Case (2001 PTD 1557) has declared the penalty or additional tax as justified?

5.We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellate at length and have gone through the order dated 13.05.2002 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and find that no question of law arose in the instant Appeal. The question of law that has been framed in the Appeal does not raise any substantive question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant disputes the order of the Appellate Tribunal which partially allowed the appeal of the Respondent. We agree with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal which declared the penalty of Rs.12,13,000/- unjustified and restricted the additional tax charged under section 12(8) on two grounds viz: firstly that in the earlier order the assessing officer has not charged the same perhaps for the reason that he was satisfied that assessee has not defaulted and secondly that even otherwise, the Appellate Tribunal has considered the charge to be as unjustified in other cases. We see no reason to disbelieve the impugned order which does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity as the same has been passed after scrutinizing the relevant record as well as on the basis of valid reasons.

6.Therefore, the Appeal is decided against the Appellant.

7.Office shall send a copy of this order under seal of the Court to the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as per section 27(5) of the Act.

KMZ/C-8/L Order accordingly.