1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.-The following question of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Tribunal dated 16th January, 1974 has been referred to this Court for answer under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the employer's contribution to the Superannuation Fund in the U. K. Was not perquisite to the employee and as such not to be included in his total income ?"
3. ' This question though worded differently was referred to this Court in Income-tax References Nos.
4. 474, 475, 476 and 477 of 1972, between the same parties, which related to assessment years 1967- 68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, and was decided in the negative because in those cases the finding of the tribunal was that the pension plan maintained in the United Kingdom was income which accrued to the applicant, and was liable to be included in the applicant's taxable income but in the present case, the Tribunal has taken a contrary view and, therefore, the question has been framed in above terms and reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax.
5. Since this question already stands answered in the aforesaid cases the decision wherein is reported as A. J. Hartshorn v. Commissioner of Incom-tax (West Zone) Karachi (1) and since we find no valid reasons to take a different view moreso when no fresh arguments are advanced by the A learned counsel for the applicant, we answer the question in affirmative, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(I) 1984 PTD 53