Pakistan Case Law← Search
2002 P.C.T.L.R. 886

C.I.T. RAWALPINDI vs Ch. FAZAL MAHMOOD RAWALPINDI

Citation2002 P.C.T.L.R. 886
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.CTR. No. 80 of 1993
Date2001-01-10
Judge(s)Jawwad S. Khawaja, Nasim Sikandar
ResultNOT

ORDER

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.~ This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following question has been framed for our answer and reply:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case pf the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ordering the deletion of addition made u/S. 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) inspire of the fact that the approvals required under section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had been obtained from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax before completion of the assessm ent."

2. The assessee-respondent is an individual who was assessed at Rs. 3,19,925/- for the assessment year 1984-85 as against the declared income from property and salary at Rs. 8,620/- and. Rs.

18,000/- respectively, In the process, two additions of Rs. 1,91,115/- under section 13(1)(a) and of Rs.

1,28,810/- under section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were made. The Tribunal finding that two approvals required for making the aforesaid additions were obtained on the same day on which the assessm ent was framed proceeded to direct their deletion.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we are of the view that the answer to the question has to be in the negative. The two approvals acquired. Simultaneously did not answer the legal requirements as contemplated in section 13 of the Income Tax. Ordinance, 1979. In a number of recent judgments we have refused To entertain the plea put forth by the revenue that either the approval of draft assessm ent order or obtaining of two simultaneous approvals fulfilled the requirements of law. To reach that conclusion we have benefited from a recent judgment of a Division Bench of Karachi High Court in re: C.I.T, v. Muhammad Kasim (2000 PTD 280) where their Lordships observed that the comparable provisions of section 4(2-D) of m the Act, postulated two separate and independent approvals / of the IAC for making additions to the declared incomes.

4. Being in respectful agreement with the aforesaid finding recorded by our learned brothers we will return a negative reply to the aforesaid question.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search