' This is a Reference under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance").
2. Following question of law is pressed for our opinion, which is asserted to have arisen out of order dated 23.5.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal"):-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in upholding the addition under sections 21(c) and 21(m) of the Ordinance, by ignoring firstly that the tax payer/petitioner enjoys special tax year, secondly that the accounts are maintained on accrual basis as required under section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance and thirdly that the statements furnished under section 149 record tax deduction on actual payment and financial year basis?"
3. The basic facts of the case are that the accounts of the Applicant were subject to audit, after which a show-cause notice was issued to the Applicant for amendment in the assessment. The Applicant contested the demand made after amending the assessment order and the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit), Lahore vide order dated 28.1.2013 dismissed the objections of the Applicant and assessed the total tax payable. Against this order, the Applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Lahore who dismissed the appeal of the Applicant vide order dated 18.11.2014 on the ground that the Applicant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of its contentions. The Applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which also dismissed the appeal of the Applicant vide order dated 23.5.2016 for the same reasons.
4. The grievance of the Applicant is that there was a differential on the tax paid with reference to the salary and wages. The differential was explained with reference to the special tax year enjoyed by the Applicant and that the Applicant works on accrual basis under Section 32 of the Ordinance.
This was clearly reflected in the statement filed by the Applicant under section 149 of the Ordinance where all deductions were evidenced. Therefore there was a plausible reason explaining the tax differential. Learned counsel for the Applicant has essentially stressed on the fact that both these points have not been duly considered by the Respondents.
5. On behalf of the Respondents it was argued that the matter in issue is factual requiring appraisement of evidence. The Applicant was unable to justify its claim on the basis of the reasons evidenced before this Court. Therefore the Applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed.
6. We have heard the learned 'counsel at length and gone through the record and find that not only were both grounds agitated repeatedly before all forums but they were considered in all the orders. We also note that the Applicant could not justify the differential in the salaries and wages on the basis of the special calendar year and so far as the argument that it works on actual basis it is not relevant for the purposes of salaries and wages. Therefore we are of the opinion that no question of law is made out.
7. Under the circumstances, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction. Reference application is decided against the Applicant.