NASIM SIKANDAR, J.-At the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Multan zone, Multan, the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has framed following question for our consideration and reply:- "Whether in the circumstances and facts of the case ITAT was justified in presuming that Worker's Welfare Fund was levied under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and not under Worker's Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971."
2. The assessee-respondent is a registered firm and at the relevant time derived income from cotton ginning business. The assessment in its respect for the three years involved viz 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78 were framed respectively on 27.3.1975, 31.5.1976 and 27.5.1978. The Assessing Officer on 4.1.1986 proceeded to levy Worker's Welfare and at the prescribed rate on the income tax earlier determined. The assessee failed before the first appellate authority which was of the view that since Section 129 of the Ordinance did not provide for any appeal against the levy of Worker's Welfare Fund, the three appeals before him were not competent. On further appeal before the Tribunal these appeals were allowed on the ground that rectification of an assessment could only happen within four years of the statutory period and that levy of Worker's Welfare and in all the three years having been done beyond that period it was not in accordance with law.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the question as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The learned members have not "presumed" that Worker's Welfare Fund was levied under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance as mentioned in the question. Their view simply was that after framing of an assessment it could be touched only by way rectification under Section 156 of the Ordinance and that the same was possible only within four years of the date of framing of the assessm ent. Since they never found the levy of fund under Section 156 of the Ordinance as pointed out in the question, the issue raised in the aforesaid question is not only factually incorrect as framed but also it was never mooted or argued before the Tribunal.
Therefore, it cannot be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. That being so we will decline to answer the same.
4. Answer declined.