This is a Reference filed under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ("Ordinance").
2. The Appellant urged the following question of law:
(i) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the earned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to vacated the order of the CIT on the point of jurisdiction when the CIT specifically enjoyed revisional powers by virtue of Section 5(1)(cc) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
3. With reference to the question urged before us, the facts are that the respondent derives income from manufacturing and sale of cotton yarn. Assessment for the year 1997-98 was finalized under Section 62 of the Ordinance by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Islamabad ("ACIT") on 24.6.1998. Subsequently vide order dated 21.6.2002 issued by Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Lahore ("CIT") cancelled the order passed under Section 62 of the Ordinance by observing that the order is erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the assessing officer to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Aggrieved by this order of 21.6.2002, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, ("ITAT") who vide order dated 13.12.2003 observed that the CIT has wrongly exercised power under Section 66-A of the Ordinance as the same is vested in the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ("LAC"). The matter was heard before the ITAT in a reference where the order of the ACIT was upheld vide order dated 20.12.2004 by the ITAT on the ground that only the IAC had jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 66-A of the Ordinance. They observed that whether CIT specifically enjoyed revisional powers by virtue of Section 5(1)(cc) of the Ordinance is a question of fact which did not give rise to any question of law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and find that no question of law arises in the instant case as by virtue of Section 66-A of the Ordinance jurisdiction vested with the IAC.
Whether CIT had jurisdiction under Section 5(1)(cc) of the Ordinance was a question of fact which was never established. Nothing was placed on record to show the basis of the argument. The ITAT in a reference upheld the order of ACIT on the ground that only the LAC had the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 66-A of the Ordinance. Hence no question of law is made out.
5. Under the circumstances, Reference is dismissed.