Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 PTD 764

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD

Citation1989 PTD 764
CourtSindh High Court
Judge(s)Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Abdul Rasool Agha
ResultReference dismissed

' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The following two questions have been referred to us by the Department under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for our decision: "1. Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the exemption of Income-tax under M L R 104/105 in spite of the fact that he/she failed to remit the funds to Pakistan before the specified date?

2. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was justified in holding that the repatriated amount was not liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1922?"

' We have heard Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for the Respondent on the above questions. It is quite clear that the Question No,1 referred to above does not arise in the circumstances of the case as the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner both reached the conclusion that the repatriated amount having not been sent to A Pakistan by the Assessee within the period prescribed under M L R 105 read with M L R 112 the provisions of those M L Rs did not apply to the case of assessee. The Income-tax Tribunal while dealing with the above aspect of the case did not record any contrary finding and as such the question No,1 referred to us does not arise on the facts of the Reference.

The second question referred to us by the Department is actually misconceived as the Income-tax Tribunal nowhere in the order while deciding the appeal of the Assessee/respondent held that the repatriated amount was not liable to tax under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In fact the Tribunal while deciding the case specifically held that the Department has wrongly assessed the repatriated amount under section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act which does not amount to holding that the above amount was not assessable under any other provision of the Act. We therefore, hold that the second question as framed also does not arise on the facts of the Reference. We accordingly dismiss this Reference but leave the parties to bear their own costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch