NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The petitioner is a private limited company and at the relevant time, derived income as Contractors. For the assessment year 1978-79 the Assessing Officer rejected its books of accounts and applied gross profit rate. Also a number of profit and loss accounts disallowances were made. The assessee failed in first appeal on 15-4-1980 and in second appeal before the Tribunal on 20-12-1982. Both the first as well as the second appellate forums maintained not only the rejection of accounts but also the application of rate at 20% as applied by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance out of profit and loss account were also maintained for similar reasons which earlier weighed, with the Assessing Officer .
2. The assessee made three applications under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for rectification as well as recalling of the order recorded by the Tribunal. On rejection of that application on 29-12-1984 the petitioner made an application under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. 1979 proposing following questions of law for reference to this Court:--- "(i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the findings recorded as defects in accounts are not based upon erroneous assumption and misreading of evidence and whether there was any material on the basis of which it was open to the Tribunal to reject the book version of the assessee?
(ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal misdirected itself at law in omitting to consider relevant material and facts, past history and cases relied upon by the assessee and by using fresh material and irrelevant cases of consultants and its order has been vitiated on that score?
(iii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has acted legally in examining and relying upon two cases of other assessee, cited by the Departmental Representative, without affording the applicant any opportunity to explain the distinguishing features of those cases?
(iv) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal is arbitrary, inconsistent, self-contradictory, violative of the settled principles of the administration of justice delivered as it was over 11 months after hearing without intervening re-hearing?
3. On rejection of reference applications on 2.1-1985 the petitioner/assessee approached this Court under section 136(2) proposing the aforesaid questions for our consideration and reply. However, these applications registered as P.T.Rs. Nos.40 and 41 of 1985 were subsequently withdrawn in order to pursue the matter which, in the Meanwhile, had been called into question through this Constitutional petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a remand of the matter to the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue of rejection of accounts, application of G.P. Rate and disallowances out of profit and loss accounts. In support of various submissions he relies upon re: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Assessee 1986 PTD 368, re: CIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons 1988 PTD 907 and re; CIT, West Bengal-H v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. 1988 PTD 882.
5. Learned counsel for the Revenue opposes any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
According to him even a remand order cannot be made without appreciating the findings of the forums below which were in turn based upon the evidence produced by the assessee before the Income Tax Authorities or the material brought on record by them. In the view of the learned counsel such an exercise is not possible in Constitutional jurisdiction. Also controverts the assertions made at the bar for the petitioner that the delay in recording of the order by the Tribunal had resulted into prejudice to the petitioner. He states that reasons for delay were properly explained by the Tribunal in their order, dated 2-1-1985 whereby reference application were refused.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we will agree with the learned counsel for the Revenue that no case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction is made out. The Tribunal while maintaining the rejection of accounts as well as application of rate recorded proper reasons which cannot be said to have been without any basis available on record. The non-maintenance of stock register, non-verifiability of all purchases made by the petitioner as well as other profit and loss accounts expenses has not been challenged at the bar. The fact that the petitione owned construction machinery used for the project also weighed with the learned Tribunal to conclude that as compared to other assesses in similar A business, a higher G.R. Rate must have accrued to the assessee. Also while maintaining the applied rate they considered certain parallel case which cannot be said to be totally irrelevant.
7. In this view of the matter, no interference can possibly be made in Constitutional jurisdiction to remit a matter to the Tribunal which they had disposed of for valid reasons recorded on the basis of material available on the record. Therefore, we will refuse to entertain the plea that in the given situation, the aforesaid matters of the rejection of accounts, application of rate or profit and loss account disallowances needed interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.