ZIMPEX LIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And Other
This petition arose from a dispute regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for assessment under the self-assessment scheme for the income tax assessment year 1983-84. The petitioner initially filed an income tax return but subsequently filed a document captioned as a 'revised return'. The Income-tax Officer denied the petitioner's request for self-assessment, determining that the filing of a revised return excluded the case from the scheme's purview. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, relying on the petitioner's own pleadings that the document was filed under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court addressed whether the mere captioning of a return as 'revised' could be disregarded when the petitioner had explicitly pleaded it as such in the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner's own admissions precluded them from arguing otherwise. The Court affirmed that a return filed under Section 57 falls outside the scope of the self-assessment scheme pursuant to the explanation to Section 59(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.
- Does the filing of a revised return under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 exclude a taxpayer from the self-assessment scheme?
- Can a petitioner contradict their own pleadings regarding the nature of a filed return during appellate proceedings?
- Does a return of total income furnished under Section 55 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 include a return furnished under Section 57?
- Section 55, Income-tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 57, Income-tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 59(1), Income-tax Ordinance 1979
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioner first filed a return of his income for the assessment year 1983-84 on 1-8-1983. Later a "revised return" was filed for the same year on 21-12-1983.
2. The petitioner claimed assessm ent under the self-assessment scheme which was denied by the Income-tax Officer of the ground that the petitioners having filed a revised return, their case fell beyond the purview of the Scheme. There was some exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the Department which culminated with the letter of the Commissioner of Income- tax dated April 27, 1985 and the action taken by the Income-tax Officer was upheld. The petitioners thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the relevant orders which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. The learned High Court referred to the pleadings of the petitioner in their writ petition where it was categorically stated that the petitioner had filed a revised return under section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance. In this view of the matter the learned High Court found that the case of the petitioner was hit by the explanation to section 59(1) of the Ordinance which reads as follows: "For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a return of total income furnished under section 55 does not include a return " of total income furnished under section 57 "
2-A . It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that profit and loss shown in the return submitted later having remained the same, the mere fact that the return was captioned as "revised" did not make it a return under section 57 of the Ordinance. This plea is contrary to what was pleaded in the writ petition and as such the observation of the learned High Court in the impugned Judgment are unexceptionable. The case having been decided on the basis of above factual aspect, no question of law arises in this petition, which is dismissed.