COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI Versus MESSRS YUGOSLAV LINE
1. ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J . ‑‑The respondent is a non‑resident foreign shipping company carrying on business all over the world and is assessed under rule 33 (now rule 40) of the Income‑tax Rules. While computing the respondent's profits on world income basis for the assessment year 1962‑63, the Income‑tax Officer disallowed respondent's claim for initial and additional depreciation on the ground that the ships of the respondent‑Company were not installed in Pakistan. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income‑tax which was dismissed and the order of the Income‑tax Officer was upheld. The respondent assessee thereafter filed second appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal (Karachi Bench) who, following their earlier decision dated 24‑7‑1963 in I. T. A. No. 207/1962‑63, accepted the appeal and allowed the depreciation claimed by the respondent by its order dated 16‑6‑1970, holding that the respondent assessee was entitled to initial and additional depreciation in respect of the ships acquired by it during the year under consideration and used for earning the taxable income which was the subject -matter of Pakistan taxation. The applicant thereupon filed an application under section 660) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal for making a reference to the High Court to answer the following question of law
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income‑ tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to initial and additional depreciation on the ships which were not installed in Pakistan?"
3. The Appellate Tribunal, however, declined to make the reference and rejected the applications application holding that since the view taken by them in the appeal was based on Supreme Court decision in the case of Messrs United Netherlands Navigation Company Ltd. (1965)12 Taxation 57 and their own decision referred to above, which was subsequently approved also by the High Court in Reference No. 186 of 1964, the issue stood finally decided and they raw no justification for making the reference sought by the applicant. Hence this application to give direction to the appellate the Appellate Tribunal to refer the aforestated question of law to this Court for answer.
4. Similar direction to answer the same question of law arising is similar circumstances was sought in I. T. C. No. 8 of 1971, and the D. B. consisting of my Lords Dorab F. Patel J. (as he then was) and Agha Ali Hyder, J. held that as the question of law stood already decided in the affirmative against the Commissioner by the D. B. in the case reported in 1971 S & B L R 1, they would respectfully follow the view taken by the D. B. and dismissed the application, thereby declining to give the direction.
5. As we were not persuaded to take a different view of the matter in I. T. C. No. 118 of 1971, seeking the same direction, we respectfully followed their Lordships' view and dismissed the application for the same reason. As we see no differently in this application, we dismiss it also for the same reason, with no order as to costs.
6. Application dismissed.