MAMOON KAZI, J.---The Income-tax Officer determined total income of the respondent assessee at Rs.20,58,857. For the purpose of levy of surcharge in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, Part III, section 4, the Income-tax Officer considered Rs.10,29,429 being the provision for tax liability as retained income and hence excluded the said amount for calculating the surcharge. The department was, however, dissatisfied and it made a reference to the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence the following question has been referred by the learned Tribunal for our opinion: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision made for payment of taxes could be considered as retained income for purposes of levy of surcharge."
2. Both the learned counsel have pointed out that the question referred to us has already been determined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 PTD 66. The relevant observations which appear at page 83 of the report are as follows:-- "(17) For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to hereinabove in para. 1 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."
4. Since the question has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case are fully covered by the said judgment we also answer the question accordingly and in the affirmative and for the same reasons as stated in the judgment of the learned Division Bench. The parties are left to bear their own costs.