NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This appeal under section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 seeks to assail an order of the Income Tax Appellate. Tribunal, Lahore Bench, dated 0-4-1998. Following questions of law are stated to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified to hold that the business of the assessee firm being on wholesale/commission basis its turnover was to liable to minimum tax under section 80-D of the Income A Tax Ordinance, 1979 whereas Explanation, to. Subsection (2) of section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 expressly provides that turnover includes gross receipts from sales of goods?
(ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the ITAT was justified to hold that the assessee firm doing business on wholesale/commission basis was not liable to minimum tax under section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 whereas section 80-D does to lay down any such distinction and the gross commission receipts would be the turnover in terms of the provisions of Explanation to subsection (2) of section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979."
2. The assessee in this case is a registered person and during the relevant assessment year, 1992- 93 derived income as a fertilizer dealer of Messrs Daud Corporation (Pvt.) Limited. The declared income of the firm in the year at Rs. 31,000 was accepted. However, the tax was calculated under the provisions of section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to hold him liable to turnover tax under section 80-D at Rs.14,371. The total tax paid at the said income at Rs.31,000 at Rs.650 was found short by Rs.17,226. Accordingly a demand was created at the aforesaid sum.
3. Learned. CIT (Appeals) Sialkot on 25-2-1997 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in the following words:-- "Perusal of assessm ent record shows that the appellant has been dealing in Fertilizer on wholesale basis which were obtained from Messrs Daud Corporation '(Pvt.) Ltd., on commission basis. The levy of tax under section 80-D is not justified. It is also, pertinent to point out that demand has been created by the Assessing Officer Of Circle-6 instead of Circle-11, Daska. The assessment is set aside with the directions that provisions of section 80-D be looked into and after taking into consideration the nature of purchases and sales the levy of tax under section 80-D be decided."
4. The assessee dissatisfied with the remand order, filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by a learned Single Bench by way of the impugned order, dated 30-4-1998 in the following words:-- "I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and from the above facts it is quite clear that section 80-D does not attract in this case. It is surprising that after accepting the plea of the assessee the learned CIT(A) set aside the case which is not justified. The assessment order is, therefore, cancelled and the ITO Circle-II Daska is directed to make assessment in view of the above directions."
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He claims that the aforesaid two questions arise out of the said order of the Tribunal. However, we will not agree. The Order of the Tribunal as reproduced above does not show that the issue of the turnover of the assessee as a commission agent of the said Company was the basis for holding in favour of the assessee. Also the explanation to section 80-D of the Ordinance was neither discussed nor ruled upon. The order of the Tribunal when seen in the perspective of the first appellate order rather shows that the first appellate order was maintained mostly for the reason that the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer of a different circle and, therefore, it was not sustainable.
6. The question No.2 as framed again does not arise out of the said order of the Tribunal. Even otherwise it is more in nature of an argument. Rather than raising a legal controversy to be resolved by this Court.
7. For the aforesaid reasons we will refuse to consider the questions and to rule upon them.
8. Appeal rejected.