NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- This further appeal under Section-136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 assails an order recorded by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23.4.1998 on the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue.
2. The assessee is a private limited company and derives income from packing of milk and other allied products. For the assessm ent year 1994-95 a return was filed to declare income as Rs.
797,263. The assessing officer rejected the returned version inter alia on the ground that A.R. Had not provided any quantitative details to explain that decline in sales was due to competition, less availability of raw material and increase in production cost. Nothing that it had a history noted the fact that in the immediate preceding year it had maintained the estimated sales as well as G.P.
Rate still' it proceeded to further reduce the estimation of sale to Rs. 7,10,00,000/-. Some relief was allowed in profit and loss account disallowances while the cross appeal filed by the revenue was found to be unjustified and accordingly dismissed.
4. For the appellant it is claimed that following questions of law have arisen out of the said order of the Tribunals:-
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified to fix the sales at Rs. 71,000,000/- against declared sales at Rs. 69,437,618/- which were commensurate with the purchase of Packing Material which is fully verifiable.
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified to treat the contract packing receipts as outright income ignoring the expenditure of packing material consumed and other expenses, when these receipts at the most could be assessed under sec. 80C of the Income Tax Ord., 1979?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified to fix the net profit at 49.73% in contract packing receipts against GP rate date 13.5% in regular sales?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified to fix the not profit at 49.73% in contract packing receipts against GP rate date 13.5% in regular sales?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal is justified to confirm the disallowance in P & L Account, which have been made without giving any specific instance of untouched or unverifiability?
5. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that rejection of accounts of the assessee was totally unwarranted as these had to be accepted in view of the fact that all expenses of packing materials were verifiable and no sale otherwise through packing material could have been effected by the assessee. Also complaints against the treatment given to contract receipts, It is stated that in the given circumstances the aforesaid questions of law have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, In support of the proposition reliance is placed in re: M/s. Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. Central Zone-A (PTCL 1990 CL 709), Messrs Abbot Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone, Karachi (1989 PTD 602) re: Sundaram and Co. (Pvt.) v. CIT Madras (1967) 66 ITR 604, re: Bhanji Bagawandas v. CIT Madras (1968) 67 ITR 18, re: Raza Textile Ltd. v. CIT f1972) 86 ITR 673, re: C.M.
Francis & Co. (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. Kerala (1970) 77 ITR 449, and Dowager Maharani Sahab of Gondal v. CIT Karnataka (1982) 135 ITR 393.
5. Learned counsel for the revenue however, states that estimation of receipts application of G.P.
Rate, treatment of a particular item in the balance sheet and profit and loss disallowances cannot be converted into questions of law. Also by referring to certain portions of the order of the Tribunal claims that rejection of accounts having not been contested before the Tribunal one of the questions as framed could possibly be ruled upon by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
6. We will agree with the learned counsel for the respondent. As noted earlier rejection of accounts as such was not contested before the Tribunal. Also there is nothing on record to rebut the findings of the assessing officer. The contrast packing receipts could only be included in gross profit as the company itself had deducted expenses from the contract, It is further noted that no explanation whatsoever was put forth before the assessing officer or the Tribunal. At this stage, learned counsel attempts to introduce a factual claim that the amount of receipts were wrongly taken by the Tribunal. Since nothing has been brought home to support that either rejection of account or the treatment of the aforesaid contract packing receipts were without any basis, reliance of the learned counsel on the aforesaid reported judgments is of no use at all. Accordingly we are of the view that none of the questions as framed arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
7. A question of law can be said to have arisen out of an order of the Tribunal only if the issue was raised and it was ruled upon by the Tribunals, In the present case however, we find that none of the issues now being raised by way of these questions were ever raised before the Tribunal, In absence of any finding recorded the re-upon no authoritative pronouncement with regard to the stated question of law can possibly be made.