Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 218 and 219 of 1976, decided on 25th February 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 22nd December 1975, in T. R. Nos. 325 and 326 of 1972).

----Art. 185(3) read with Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 10(2)(iv), 10(2)(v) & 10(2)(xvi)-Leave to appeal-Contention that provisions of English Income-tax Act being not in pari materia with Pakistan Income-tax Act, 1922, High Court erred in following English precedents and as such misread provisions of Ss. 10(2)(iv) etc. of Income-tax Act, 1922-Submissions, held, require examination particularly in view of being supported by an Indian judgment-Leave to appeal granted.

Allahabad Glass Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. & V. P. 1962 P T D 327

ref.

Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th February 1980.

The petitioner is a registered film which carries on con struction business. 1n the events that happened, it had submitted its income returns for the assessment years 1969-70, in which it had disclosed a gross profit of nearly 15 % on its gross earnings. However, after preparing its accounts it discovered that it had not claimed depreciation in the manner prescribed in section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the said Act) on its machinery and equipment., Therefore, it claimed a sum of Rs. 1,29,806 for the same and transferred this amount from its trading account into its profit and loss account.

It would appear that the petitioner's assessment for returns of income thus submitted by it was made with the return submitted by it for the assessment year 1970-71. Nothing turns on the details of the returns sub mitted in this order except that as in the previous year the petitioner claimed Rs. 97,683 as depreciation of its machinery equipment, etc.

The Income-tax Officer rejected the petitioner's returns and assessed its profits at more than 18 % of its gross receipts for the two assessment years. Further, after thus raising the assessed profits the Income-tax Officer also rejected the amounts of Rs. 1,29,806 and Rs. 97,683 claimed by the petitioner for depreciation for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner challenged these orders in appeals before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, but as these appeals were dismissed, it filed refer ences in the Lahore High Court under section 66(i) of the said Act. Both the references were heard together, because they arose out of similar facts and raised the same question of law. The question was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeals against the order of the income-tax Officer rejecting as inadmissible the petitioner's claim for the deduction of Rs. 1,29,806 acid Rs. 97,683, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively. The references were heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court which decided the question against the petitioner. Hence these petitions for leave.

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 218 of 1976, arises out of the petitioner's claim for depreciation on its machinery etc., for the assessment year 1969-70, whilst Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 219 of 1976, arises out of the petitioner's claim for depreciation on its machinery, etc. for the assessment year 1970-71.

In rejecting the petitioner's contention, the learned Judges of the High Court have relied exclusively on English case-law, therefore, learned counsel took us through the relevant provisions of the English Income-tax Act and. the said Act and submitted that as the provisions of the two statutes were not in pari materia, the learned Judges bad erred in following the English precedents. And he took us through the provisions of sections 19(2) (v) and 10(21, (xvi) of the said Act and contended that they had been misread.

Both these submissions require examination, the moreso, as they are supported by an Indian judgment reported in Allahahabad Gliass Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. & V. P. (1962 P T D. 327). Accordingly, we grant leave to examine these questions. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000, in each of the petitions. The appeals will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents and will be heard together.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.