THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INVESTIGATION, KARACHI Versus MESSRS NISHAT MILLS LTD., KARACHI

AJMAL MIAN, J .-- This is an Income-tax Reference made by the learned Income-tax Tribunal under section 66(1) of the income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1970-71, on the following two questions:

(1) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in directing that the liability under section 18-A(6) of the Income-tax Act should be determined on the basis of the latest completed assessment under section 23 (3) of the Income-tax Act which was for 1966-67 and not on the basis of an assessment under section 23-B which was for 1968-69 for a later previous year?

(2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that additional tax could not be levied beyond 30th day of June of the year next following for, which the tax was due?

2. Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the applicant in view of the clear language used in section 18-A of the Act has candidly submitted that in presence of a regular assessment order the payment under section 18-A of the Act for advance income-tax will be on the basis of the regular assessment. We would, therefore, answer the above first question in the affirmative.

3.As regards the above question No.2, learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court namely, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Olympia (1987 PT D 739, relevant portion at pages 756, 757) in which the above Division Bench has taken the following view:

"18. In our view, as the amending provision under consideration has been inserted in subsection (6) of section 18-A to remedy a wrong that was being done to the assessees, and the amending of provision, is to be given retrospective operation for extending cases, lo give effect to the intent of the Legislature. As observed earlier, a wrong was being done to the assessees by providing for an indefinite period during which they were made liable for payment of additional tax at the rate of two percent per mensem and this wrong was sought to be remedied by the remedial and curative amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1973. If the intention of the Legislature had been that this remedy should be available only in respect of assessments for the year 1973-74 and subsequent years, the Legislature would have used appropriate words to express such intention. No such appropriate words are mentioned in the amending provision. There is no reason why the remedial provision of the amending law should not be applied to pending proceedings. In fact, this appears to the intent of Legislature."

4. Mr. Shaikh Haider has submitted that the Department has gone in appeal against the above conclusion. Be that as it may, we see no reason to take a different view on the above question as the above judgment is binding on us, in terms of the above-quoted observations in the above case. Our answer to the above second question is in the affirmative.

The reference stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

H.B.A./ C-46/ K Reference answered in the affirmative.