THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE-A, LAHORE vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM
This reference was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-A, Lahore under Section 136(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, seeking the Lahore High Court's opinion on questions of law regarding whether the statutory bar on challenging an Income Tax Officer's (I.T.O.) jurisdiction under Section 5(5) applies before Appellate Authorities, and whether filing a return debars an assessee from raising such a jurisdictional challenge. The learned Tribunal had found as a matter of fact, which was admitted by the Revenue, that the Assessing Officer in Circle-R had no jurisdiction to assess the respondent. The High Court declined to answer the questions of law framed, holding that since the lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was an admitted finding of fact, the questions raised were rendered purely academic. The Court reiterated the established principle that while exercising advisory jurisdiction under Section 136(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the High Court will not express opinions on matters of mere academic interest.
- Will the High Court answer questions of law referred under Section 136(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 where the core jurisdictional defect is an admitted finding of fact and the questions are of purely academic interest?
- Whether the bar on challenging the jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer under Section 5(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 applies before Appellate Authorities?
- Does filing a return in response to a notice debar an assessee from challenging the jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer who admittedly lacks territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction?
- Section 5(3), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 5(4), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 5(5), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Section 136(5), Income Tax Ordinance 1979
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This is a case stated by the Lahore Banch of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-A, Lahore. The following questions have been framed for our consideration and reply:--- "(1) Whether the bar created by subsection (5) of section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance in regard to challenging the jurisdiction of an I.T.O. Is also applicable before the Appellate Authorities.
(2) Whether by filing a return the assessee is debarred to challenge the jurisdiction of I.T.O. Before the Appellate Authorities where admittedly the I.T.O. Who makes the assessment has no jurisdiction to assess,"
2. According to the statement of the case, the assessee was residing and also doing business inside Delhi Gate, Lahore. He was earlier assessed at Circle. P. However, the assessment in question was completed in Circle-R after the assessee filed a return in compliance with the notice issued by the I.T.O. Of that Circle. On challenge the objection against the jurisdiction was rejected by the First Appellate Authority. The learned Tribunal, however, concluded that subsection (5) of section 5 had to be read together with subsections (3) and (4). In their way of interpretation, the bar to raise an objection to jurisdiction as contemplated in these provisions was relevant only before the Commissioner, Regional Commissioner or C.B.R. Also that mere factum of having responded to a notice issued by the Assessing Officer an assessee was not debarred from challenging jurisdiction.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are not inclined to answer any of the aforesaid two questions. It has been noted that the learned Tribunal in the order recorded on appeal of the assessee on 9-12-1984 found it as a fact that I.T.O. Circle-R had no jurisdiction to make the assessm ent. In the statement of the case again they have stated that admittedly the I.T.O. Circle-R had no jurisdiction to make an assessment. In the presence of such findings of fact which are otherwise not controverted by the Revenue, we are of the view that both the questions remain only of an academic interest. If the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame an assessm ent and as per the order of the learned Tribunal the Revenue had so admitted, no question of law can be said to have arisen out of its order. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 136(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not express an opinion on matters of academic interest only.
Answer declined. Answer declined.
Cited by 3 cases
- Collector Of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate Of Paccs, Karachi vs Messrs Kapron Overseas Supplies Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.,Karachi 2010 P.C.T.L.R. 981
- Collector Of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate Of PACCS, Karachi vs M_S. Kapron Overseas Supplies Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi PTCL 2010 CL. 1067
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PaCCS, KARACHI(PVT.) LTD., KARACHI vs Messrs KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLIES CO 2010 PTD 465