1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The respondent, a private limited Company declared its income at Rs,285,795, Rs,16,28,737 and Rs,842,998 in assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. It was assessed at Rs,4,30,021, Rs,18,69,117 and Rs,13,17,584. He treated the amount of tax payable as unretained income and further levied surcharge in each year. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax who allowed the same and directed the Income Tax Officer not to levy surcharge on amount of taxes payable. The Department then challenged this order before the Tribunal but the order of the Commissioner was confirmed. The Department filed an application under Section 66 (i) for referring the following questions which have been referred:- "For Assessm ent Year 1977-78: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that provision liability for tax falls within the purview of the expression 'income as retained for meeting working capital requirements' as used in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1977 (XXX of 1977) as amended by substitution through the Ordinance No,II of 1978 read with section 4 of the said Finance Act and hence it is to be excluded from the total income for levy of surcharege?
2. " ' For Assessm ent Year 1978-79: "
3. ' Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that provision/liability for tax falls within the purview of the expression 'income as retained for meeting working capital requirements" as used in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Ordinance, 1978 read with section 4 of the said Finance Ordinance, and hence it is to be excluded from the total income for levy of surcharge.
4. " ' For Assessm ent Year 1979-80: "
5. ' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that provision/liability for tax falls within the purview of the expression 'income as retained for meeting working capital requirements' as used in Para. A of Part III of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 read with Section 10 of it and hence it is to be excluded from the total income for levy of surcharge"?
6. ' We have heard Mr. Shaikh Haider and Mr. K. Salahuddin the learned counsel for the parties. Both of them have referred to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 PTD 666 in which after considering various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and discussing several authorities and textbooks observed as follows:- "For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to hereinabove in para. I is that the Tribunal was justified in holding that income-tax liability payable for relevant assessment year could be included for purposes of working out 'retained income' for levy of surcharge."
7. ' Both the learned counsel have adopted the same argument and have not raised any contention to take a different view. We have gone through this judgment and are in respectful agreement with it.
8. ' We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative.