' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---By this single judgment we propose to dispose of this writ petition alongwith Writ Petitions Nos.20 of 1995, 22 of 1995, 23 of 1995, 53 of 1995 and 54 of 1995 as in all.These writ petitions common questions of law i,e,, the legality of selection of cases for total audit under para. 4(ii) of Circulars Nos.16 of 1992 and 9 of 1994 relating to Self-Assessment Scheme, are involved.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner M/s. Rehmania Hospital filed its return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring net income at Rs,60,000 and tax paid thereon as Rs,3,300 vide Circular No,9 of 1994 (Income-tax). By Letter No, 96367, dated 23-2-1995 the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that its case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme.
3. In Writ Petition No,20 of 1995 the petitioner Fazal & Co. Filed its return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring the net income at Rs,68,000 and tax paid thereon as Rs,4,100 vide Circular No,9 of 1994. By Letter No,96395 dated Nil the Income-tax Officer, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that its case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 1994-95 and, therefore, its return could not be accepted.
4. In Writ Petition No,22 of 1995 the petitioner Akhtar Munir and partners filed their return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring net income at Rs,32,000 and tax paid thereon Rs,500 vide Circular No,9 of 1994. By Letter No,154002, dated Nil the Income-tax Officer, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that its case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 1994-95 and, therefore, its return of income could not be accepted.
5. In Writ Petition No,23 of 199,5 the petitioner Muhammad Younis & Brothers filed its return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring net income at Rs,32,000 and tax paid thereon as Rs,500 vide Circular No,9 of 1994. By Letter No,TR-167 dated Nil the Income-tax Officer, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that its case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 1994-95 and, therefore, its return of income could not be accepted.
6. In Writ Petition No,53 of 1995 the petitioner Alamgir Khan filed his return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring net income at Rs,33,000 and tax paid thereon as Rs,600 vide Circular No,9 of 1994. By Letter No,125475 dated 28-21995 the Income-tax Officer, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that his case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 1994-95 and, therefore, his return could not be accepted.
7. In Writ Petition No,54 of 1995 the petitioner Amaldar Khan filed his return of income for the assessm ent year, 1994-95 under the Self-Assessment Scheme declaring net income at Rs,33,000 and tax paid thereon as Rs,600 vide Circular No,9 of 1994. By Letter No,125477 dated 28-21995 the Income-tax Officer, respondent No,5 herein, informed the petitioner that his case had been selected for total audit under para. 4(ii) of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 1994-95 and, therefore, his return could not be accepted.
8. The respective letters in each case as aforesaid selecting the cases of the petitioners for total audit under the Self-Assessm ent Scheme have been impugned in these writ petitions.
9, The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Para-4(ii) of the Self-Assessm ent Scheme a case can only be selected for total audit when the income is suspected on the basis of definite information based on material evidence and in this respect the said Para.4(ii) has also been reproduced in paras. (ii) and (iii) of the grounds of respective writ petitions. The petition further indicates that the case of the petitioner has been selected under para. 4(ii) under the Scheme as contained in Circular No,9 of 1994, a copy of which has also been placed on the file of each petition. The perusal of para. 4(ii) does not show that the case can only be selected if the income is suspected on the basis of definite information based on material as referred to at the time of arguments and also in the writ petitions. However, such conditions were available in Circular No,16 of 1992 (income-tax) but the same are omitted from the said para of Circular No,9 of 1994. In order to appreciate the distinction between the two relevant paras. First para. Of Circular No,16 reads as under:--- "Circular No,16 of 1992 (Income-tax). Selection of Cases for Audit.
4. From amongst those qualifying for the Self-Assessment Scheme returns may be selected for audit,
(i) through computer....
(ii) with the approval of Regional Commissioner of Income-tax where gross under statement of income is suspected on the basis of definite information based on material evidence."
' Similarly, the relevant para. Of Circular No, 9 of 1994 is reproduced below:--- Circular No,9 of 1994. Selection of Cases for Audit.
(i) through computer.....
(ii) by the Regional Commissioner of Income-tax on initiation by the Commissioners of Income-tax " The above mentioned subsequent para . Referred to and applicable to the case of the petitioner does not visualise any such condition of definite information and material evidence as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in view of statutory remedies available to the petitioners in the form of appeal/revision etc., and that the petitioner could have advanced the grievance by availing of the said remedies before the concerned authorities, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Reliance in this respect has been placed on: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax, Companies-II and another PLD 1992 SC 847, (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax etc., v. M/s. N.V. Philip's Gloeilampenfabriaken PLD 1993 SC 434; 1993 PTD 865 (iii) Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad etc., 1993 SCMR 1798 (iv) Income-tax Officer and another v. M/s. Chappal Builders (1993 SCMR 1108), (v) M/s. Grays of Cambridge (Pak.) Limited Sialkot v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-01, Sialkot and another (Civil Petitions Nos.1229 and 1230-L of 1995, decided on 18-3-1996). (vi) Messrs Sameer Electronics v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-10, Lahore 1996 PTD 36 (Lahore High Court) and (vii) Writ Petition No,372 of 1993 (M), decided on 12-10-1993 (Peshawar High Court).
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has placed reliance in support his contention with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on: (i) Cannon Products Limited v. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Karachi and 2 others (1993 PTD 349), (Karachi High Court), (ii) M/s. Siceco International v. Regional, Commissioner of Income-tax, Southern Region, Karachi and another 1993 PTD 1007 (Karachi High Court), (iii) Messrs Muhammad Oil Trading Co. Through Partner, Karachi v. Regional Commissioner of Income tax, Southern Region, Karachi and another 1994 PTD 494 (Karachi High Court) and (iv) Messrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs (Exports), Customs House, Karachi and 4 others PLD 1996 Karachi 68.
12. The examination of the rulings referred to above on both sides reveals that the view point of the respondents is having the support of the attest judgments of the superior Courts including the Supreme Court. Apart from the above mentioned prevailing objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, the entire edifice of the learned counsel for the petitioner falls to the ground in view of amendment of para. 4(ii) in Circular No,9 of 1994 wherein the conditions of definite information and material evidence have been omitted and the selection of the case for total audit can be made by the relevant authorities without fulfillment of any pre-condition like the one referred to above. .
13. Resultantly, we see no substance in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Above are the reasons for our short order.