Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 584 of 1986, decided on 19th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑5‑1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1935 of 1985).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Income‑tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 55, 57 & 59(1)‑‑Self‑assessment‑‑Revised return of income‑‑ Assessee filing a revised return of income under S. 57 of Ordinance was denied assessment under Self‑assessment Scheme‑‑Writ petition challenging said order dismissed on ground that petitioner's case was hit by S. 59(1) Explanation‑‑Contention that profit and loss shown in two returns having remained same, mere fact that subsequent return was captioned as "revised" would not make it a return under S. 57 being contrary to what was categorically stated in Writ Petition, order of High Court was unexceptionable‑‑Case having been decided on basis of factual aspect, and no question of law arising, leave to appeal refused.
Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 1986.
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 assessment 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.
M.I. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer