COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI vs Messrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
These appeals by leave of the Court challenged the judgment passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of the tax appeals on the basis of an earlier judgment without considering the distinct points involved and the effect of specific statutory provisions, notably subsection (2) of section 163 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the cases were distinguishable and that the High Court ought to have disposed of them independently after examining the relevant legal provisions, including section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and section 241 read with rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982. The Court also addressed whether a department counsel's consent could waive a question of law, concluding that such consent is meaningless under the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the cases to the High Court for fresh disposal within three months.
- Whether the consent given by a department counsel on a question of law is binding under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does an appellate court err by disposing of a case based on an earlier precedent without considering distinct statutory provisions and factual differences?
- What is the effect of section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 when assessing distinct tax appeal points?
- Section 163(2), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 241, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Rule 20, Income Tax Rules 1982
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---These appeals by leave of the Court have been filed against the judgment dated 7th February, 2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for appellant, learned Deputy Attorney-General who appeared on Court notice and the Member Tax, Central Board of Revenue contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same A High Court dated 24th February.
1999 passed in I.T.A. No, 192 of 1997 without taking into consideration the effect of subsection (2) of section 163 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. According to them the points involved in both the cases are distinct from each other,
3. When we inquired from them whether the counsel for the Department had consented for the disposal of appeals and now they can agitate the same points. It was explained by them as a question of law is involved, therefore, the consent given by the Department counsel will be meaningless under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is a distinction in both the cases and learned High Court may have disposed of these cases independently, taking into consideration the effect of section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance as well as other provisions of law i,e, section 241 read with rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons appeals are allowed, impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2002 is set aside and cases are remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeals afresh, expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of three months keeping in view the above observation.