1. NAIMUDDIN, J. In this income-tax reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 the following question of law arising out of the order dated 15-11-1971, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has been referred to this Court for answer.
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income-taxi Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that dividends received by the assessee on shares of Companies enjoying the benefit of section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act are exempt from tax and not liable to been included in the total income of the shareholders?--- Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent received dividend income in assessment year 1966- 67 from Companies enjoying tax holiday under section I5-BB of the Income-tax Act and claimed exemption of the same from pay--ment of tax thereon, but the Income tax Officer taxed the same.
3. However, the Tribunal on appeal exempted the same.
4. A similar question already stands answered by this Court in Income. Tax References Nos. 51, 59 and 104 of 1972, and in a number of other cases reported as the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karachi
(East) v. Yasin Ali Akbar H. Ibrahim PLD 1982 Kar. 847 as follows: -- "In view of the above discussion our answer to the question framed in the references is that the assessm ent orders relating to a period prior to 20th December, 1971 including the dividends received by the asses see from the Companies covered under section 15-BB as part of the income were not validated by the Finance Ordinance No. XXI of 1972 during the pendency of the present references/cases and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the dividends received by the assessee on the shares of the Companies enjoying the benefit of section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act are exempt from tax arid not liable to be included in the total income of the shareholders."
5. It is not necessary for us to repeat the reasons recorded therein and for the same reasons as given in the cited case, we answer the question in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs as the respondent is absent today before us.