MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETH I, J. Through instant Reference Application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the Ordinance of 2001 "), the following question of law, asserted to have arisen out of the impugned order dated 12.05.2016 , passed by learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench, Lahore (" Appellate T ribunal "), has been pressed and argued for our opinion:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ATIR was justified to adjudicate the issue on the ground that tax payable has alrea dy been paid and there was no tax payable, thus, imposition of penalty under Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not called for ignoring the facts, that the subject issue does not emanate from the order of the CIR(A)?"
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-taxpayer failed to fulfill its legal obligation of tiling wealth statement for the tax year 2012 and it resulted into issuance of show-cause notice under Section 182(2) of the Ordinance of 2001, which culminated in passing Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2014. Feeling aggrieved, respondent-taxpayer preferred appeal before CIR (Appeals), Lahore, which was allowed. Feeling dissatisfied, applicant-department filed appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence this Reference Application.
3. Learned counsel for applicant-department, at the very outset, was confronted with the fact that no question of law is arising out of impugned Appellate Tribunal's order , which is even otherwise based on findings of facts.
However , despite ef fort, he could not give any satisfactory reply .
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that learned Appellate Tribunal, after appreciating the available record, recorded findings of facts that tax amount due had already been paid and there was not tax liability , hence, imposition of penalty was not justified. The relevant part of impugned findings is reproduced hereunder:- "5. ......
We do not find ourselves in agreement with the reasons given by the C1R (A) for annulment of penalty order as the default of non-filing of wealth statement is proved from record. However , penalty for failure of wealth statement alongwith return had to be levied/imposed @ 25% of "tax payable". The A.R. has pleaded that the tax payable has already been paid and there was no tax payable, thus, imposition of penalty u/S. 182 was not called for in the light of decision of Sindh High Court cited as 2013 PTD 387 in case of C1R, Zone-Ill, Karachi v. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi. In this case, it is held as under:- ".....Amount of such penalty was required to be calculated on basis of tax payable in respect of that tax year, and there was no reference to chargeability of tax in the said Section---In the present case, it was on record that since there was no tax payable alongwith return by the taxpayer , thus, the provision of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance was not applicable to the facts of the case".
6. In view of above decision of the Sindh High Court, we therefore, annul the penalty order . The appeal filed by the department fails."
6. Needless to say that the findings of facts recorded by learned Appellate Tribunal, unless found to be either perverse or contrary to record, cannot be interfered with by the High Court, while examining questions of law proposed under the law. Scope of reference jurisdiction under the law is restricted only to the extent of examining questions of law arising from order passed by learned Appellate Tribunal and not to decide questions of facts, or for determining disputed facts. Reference is made to Messrs F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. v. Depu ty Commissioner Income Tax (2014 SCMR 907), Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I v. Messrs Industrial Chemicals (Pvt.)
Ltd. (2017 PTD 756), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017 PTD 1167), Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Adeel Brothers (2017 PTD 1579 ) and Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II v . Al-Hamad International Container T erminal (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017 PTD 2212 ).
7. Since the decision by learned. Appellate Tribunal is based on findings of facts, therefore, we decline to exercise advisory jurisdiction.
This Reference Application is decided against applicant-department.
8. Office shall send a copy of this order under seal of the Court to learned Appellate Tribunal as per Section 133(5) of the Ordinance of 2001.