1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the impugned decision by the High Court in two Tax references.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel the impugned judgment goes against what he contended to be the correct interpretation of section 13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922. He in this behalf has relied on 'Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Central Provinces v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola, Owner Laxminarayan Badridas Shrawagi' (AIR 1937 Privy Council 133), and 'Miss Assia v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal etc.' (PLD 1979 SC 949). Another recent judgment of this Court, namely, 'Messrs Mian Muhammad Sharif & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax' (1987 SCMR 1254) has also been referred to at the Bar. We do agree with the learned counsel that the questions of law regarding interpretation of section 13, as are involved in this case, stand already resolved. The point, however, is one of fact and appreciation of the material before the Income-tax Officer and the higher Income-tax Authorities. The learned counsel contends; that the basis for the assessment and the manner in which it has been made against the interest of the petitioner, after holding that it was a no regular account case, were not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, at some length, we are of the opinion that relevant basis for the impugned assessm ent were not ignored, nor there was any defect in the manner adopted. The difference of opinion can however be; whether, the assessment made was honest or not. In our view, there was nothing dishonest in it. The conduct of the petitioner amongst other factors was rightly kept in view. Thus not finding any justification for interference in so far as the merits of the case are concerned, we do not consider it a fit case for leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.