Messrs J.K. (TECH) (PVT.) LIMITED vs INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others
This matter concerns a tax dispute where the petitioner challenged an order passed under section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding minimum tax liability. The core legal question was whether an order passed under section 80D, which was not independently appealable, could be treated as an integral part of an assessment order under section 62 for the purpose of calculating limitation periods for appeals. The petitioner had filed an application for rectification under section 156 of the Ordinance against the section 80D order, which was dismissed. The Commissioner and the High Court erroneously treated the appeal against the section 156 order as time-barred, assuming it related back to the original section 62 assessment. The Supreme Court held that the order under section 80D was a separate and independent legal entity from the section 62 assessment. Consequently, the limitation period for the appeal against the rectification order must be calculated from the date of the rectification order itself, not the original assessment. The Court set aside the lower judgments and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
- Is an order passed under section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, an integral part of an assessment order under section 62 of the same Ordinance?
- Does the limitation period for an appeal against an order passed under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, run from the date of the original assessment or the date of the rectification order?
- Can an order passed under section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, be treated as a separate and independent legal entity for the purposes of appeal?
- Section 62, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 80D, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 136, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 156, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment , dated 1-6-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that through one consolidated order, the Income Tax Officer decided the question of assessm ent under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance and also the liability of the petitioner under section 80D of the said Ordinance about the minimum tax.
3. The petitioner did not feel aggrieved against the assessment made under section 62 of the Ordinance whereas it felt aggrieved of the order passed under section 80-D thereof. It is an admitted position that order under section 80D was not appealable under the Income Tax Ordinance whereas order under section 62 of the said Ordinance was appealable.,
4. The petitioner, however, made application under section 156 of the Ordinance before the same authority for rectification of the order made under section 80D on the ground that certain liabilities had been put to its shoulders for which it was not liable. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax through order, dated 17-9-1999. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the correctness of the legal proposition that this order under section 156 of the Ordinance was appealable before the Commissioner.
5. The petitioner filed appeal against the order, dated 17-9-1999 before the Commissioner which was dismissed through order, dated 27-11-1999 as barred by time assuming as if order made under section 80D of the Ordinance was integral part of order made under section 62, therefore, the same was barred from the date of the order made originally under section 62 of the Ordinance.
6. Further appeal filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court has been dismissed though the impugned judgment, dated 1-6-2000 for the view taken by the Income Tax Tribunal has been upheld and it was assumed as if there was no separate legal entity of the order made under section 80D of the Ordinance which original order was not appealable and the proceedings initiated in appeal before the Commissioner were directed against the order, dated 17-9-1999 passed in application made for rectification of the order passed under section 80D of the Ordinance which was admittedly appealable, therefore, the question of limitation qua the said appeal should have been decided with reference to the order, dated 17-9-1999 in relation to order made under section 80D of the Ordinance which was separate and independent order and could not have been taken and assumed as barred by time assuming as if was directed against order passed under section 62 ibid, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 17-9-1999 before the Commissioner was not barred by time and the view taken by the Commissioner and the High Court in the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
7. For the foregoing reasons; this petition is converted into appeal, the same is accepted, impugned judgment, dated 1-6-2000 of the High Court and order, dated 27-11-2000 of the Commissioner are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits against the order, dated 17-9-1999 in relation to order passed under section 80D of the Ordinance after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
8. There will, however, be. No order as to costs.