NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- On an application under subsection (1) of Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujranwala Zone, Gujranwala has stated the case framing the following question of law said to have arisen out of its order dated 24.2.1985.
Question of Law.
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the super tax for the period prior to chance in constitution of firm and thereafter was required to be changed and allocated separately?"
2. The respondent is a registered firm and at the relevant time derived income from plying of buses.
For the assessm ent year 1978-79, the assessing officer discorded the declared income at Rs.
40,010/- and ex parte assessm ent was framed at Rs. 92,421/- after estimating the receipts. On first appeal, the estimation of receipts was determined at Rs. 1,80,000/- and therefore the income stood reduced to Rs. 72,421/-. It appears that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while deciding further appeal of the assessee noticed that there had been two periods of business during the assessm ent year. The first ranging from 1.10.1976 to 1.2.1977 and second from 2.2.1977 to 30.9.1977. It was observed that during the first period there were 9 partners while in the second 2 new partners joined making their total number at 11. In the view of the Tribunal the assessing officer while making the assessm ent had not bifurcated the two periods which resulted in sharing of super tax even by the newly introduced partners for the period for which they had not joined the firm. Accordingly the bifurcation of super tax for the two periods were directed to be made so that there was no extra burden on any partner who joined the firm at the latter stage.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue at some length, we are of the view that the question as framed does not rise any legal controversy, It will be seen that the jurisdiction of this Court to reply a question is dependent not only on accrual of a legal controversy but also on the condition that the controversy is substantial inasmuch as it givens rise to a liability in terms of tax or its reduction, In the present case, this element is clearly absent. The direction of the Tribunal to bifurcate super tax amongst the old and the new members did not result in any change in the liability of the firm. The grievance of at all there could be one had to be on the party of the firm or its partners and not the revenue, In absence of any change in the super tax liability of the fire, the answer in whatever manner made will remain of academic interest only. As said earlier, this Court does not answer a question of academic interest only.
4. Answer declined.