THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI vs Sh. GHULAM HUSSAIN
This matter concerns a reference application filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Tribunal regarding assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The Revenue sought the opinion of the High Court on several questions of law, primarily challenging the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, concerning the imposition of penalties for the concealment of 'total income' versus 'income', and the interpretation of Section 69(3) of the same Ordinance regarding the clubbing of a minor son's share income with the taxpayer's total income. Upon review, the Court observed that the issues presented by the Revenue had not been raised, argued, or adjudicated upon by the Income Tax Tribunal in the underlying proceedings. The Court held that a question of law can only be said to have arisen for the Court's consideration if it was previously argued before and ruled upon by the Tribunal. Consequently, as the issues were not addressed by the Tribunal, the Court declined to answer the questions referred, disposing of the matter accordingly.
- Can the High Court answer a question of law in a reference application if that issue was not raised before or ruled upon by the Income Tax Tribunal?
- Is a question of law considered to have arisen for judicial review if it was not argued before the appellate tribunal?
- Section 111, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 2(14), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 2(24), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 2(22), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 69(3), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 for our opinion and answer:--- "1980-81: Whether the learned Tribunal interpreted section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, correctly by holding that penalty under that section is exigible on the concealment of 'total income' whereas the terms used in the section is 'income' and the two terms are variously defined in sections 2(14) and 2(24) of the Ordinance and by no means synonymous and interchangeable?
2. 1981-82:
(i) Whether the learned Tribunal interpreted section 111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 correctly by holding that penalty under that section is exigible on the concealment of 'total income' whereas the terms used in that section is 'income' and the two terms are previously defined in sections 2(22) and 2(24) of the Ordinance, and are by no means synonymous and interchangeable?
(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal, so far as the assessment year, 198182 is concerned, correctly interpreted the provisions of section 69(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, so as to hold the share income of the appellant's minor son, Uzair Ahmed, for a part of the year as income of the applicant for the purpose of clubbing it with his total income under that section; whereas no share income of the applicant's said son was includable in his total income as Uzair Ahmed had attained majority on 26-2-1981 before the closing date of the relevant accounting year i.e. 30-6-1981?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that none of the aforesaid issues were raised before the learned Tribunal. A question of law can be said to have arisen only if it was argued and ruled upon by the Tribunal.
3. Since none of the issues put forth/now were ruled upon by the Tribunal nor these otherwise arise out of their order we will refuse to answer them . .
4. Disposed of accordingly. .
Cited by 3 cases
- Messrs SQUIBB PAKISTAN PVT. LTD. and another vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and another 2017 PTD 1303
- M/s. Squibb Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax. 2017 PTD 1303, 2017 SCMR 1006, 2017 SCP 892, PTCL 2017 CL. 646
- (1) M/s Squibb Pakistan Pvt. Ltd (2) Commissioner Income Tax (Legal 2017 SCP 892