1. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- The revenue has framed the following questions of law for the Assessment Years 1980- SI and 1981-82 for our opinion and answer:- 1980- 81 Whether the learned Tribunal interpreted Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, correctly by holding that penalty under that section is exigible on the concealment of "total income" whereas the terms used in the section is "income" and the two terms are variously defined in Section 2(44) and 2(24) of the Ordinance and are by no means synonymous and interchangeable?
2. 1981- 82
(i) Whether the learned Tribunal interpreted Section 111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 correctly by holding that penalty under that section is exigible on the concealment of "total income" whereas the term used in that section is "income" and the two terms are previously defined in Sections 2(22) and 2(24) of the Ordinance, and are by no means synonymous and interchangeable?
(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal, so far as the Assessment Year 1981-82 is concerned, correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 69(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, so as to hold the share income of the appellant's minor son, Uzair Ahmed, for a part of the year as income of the applicant for the purpose of clubbing it with his total income under that section; whereas no share income of the applicant's said son was includable in his total income as Uzair Ahmad had attained majority on 26.2.1981 before the closing date of the relevant accounting year i.e. 30.6.1981?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that none of the aforesaid issues were raised before the learned Tribunal. A question of law can be said to have arisen only if it was argued and ruled upon by the Tribunal.
3. Since none of the issues put forth/now were ruled upon by the Tribunal nor these otherwise arise out of their order, we will refuse to answer them.
4. Disposed of accordingly.