Through this Reference Application under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance of 2001"), following question of law, asserted to have arisen out of impugned order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal"), has been proposed for our opinion:- "Whether as per facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified to hold that time limitation for an assessm ent also includes the service of order, whereas section 64 of the repealed Ordinance determines the time limitation for an assessment only?"
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessing officer issued notice dated 06.04.2002 requiring respondent-taxpayer to provide evidence of income tax deducted under section 50(4) of the Ordinance of 2001, on various payments including purchases, which remained unattended and resulted in charging tax under sections 52/86 on purchases amounting to Rs.23,00,000/- against the confronted figure of Rs.25,69,023/-, vide order dated 15.05.2002. Feeling aggrieved, respondent- taxpayer filed appeal before CIT (Appeals), which was disposed of while remanding the case for de novo consideration, vide order dated 20.03.2004. Re-assessment was completed by again charging tax under Sections 52/86 of the Ordinance, ibid vide order dated 18.06.2005. The respondent taxpayer again assailed said order by filing appeal before CIT (Appeals), which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2006. Being dis-s ads filed, applicant-department filed appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2008, which has been impugned through instant reference application.
3.. Learned counsel for respondent-taxpayer, at the very outset, submits that the proposed question / proposition of law has already been answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in M/s. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Islamabad and others (2019 SCMR 1735 = 2019 PTD 1961) operative part of which is reproduced hereunder.
"6. In the present case however, the respondent Deputy Collector did not even apply for an extension but consumed 157 days to record the reasons for his judgment and to communicate the same to the parties. We cannot accept the proposition that such decision had taken place as and when the hearing was concluded. It is necessary that an adjudicatory decision be declared and duly communicated to the parties. That has not happened in the present case. Therefore, according to the record of the case, the decision took place on 19.02.2014 and not on 24.12.2013 as contended by the leaned counsel for the respondents."
4. When confronted, learned counsel for applicant-department, despite arguing the case at some length, could not deny the above stated legal position.
5. Undeniably, the case law cited by learned counsel for respondent-taxpayer is squarely apply to the proposition in hand. Hence, following the ratio settled in the case of Messrs Mujahid Soab Chemical Industrial (Pvt.) Ltd., supra, this Reference Application is disposed of in the same terms.
The instant reference application is decided against the applicant-department and in favour of respondent-taxpayer.
6. Office shall a copy of this order under seal of the Court to the Appellate Tribunal as per section 133(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.