Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. D-762 and D-763 of 1986, decided on 10th December, 1986.

--S. 59--Self-Assessment Scheme, 1982-83, para. 9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court- Findings of Income-tax Officer and Appellate Authority of the Department that assessee was guilty of concealment and suppression--Such findings being findings of fact and not shown by assessee to be completely wrong, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

--S. 157--Counsel and client--Associate of firm of counsel appearing for assessee--Client, held, could not claim that he was not properly represented.

---S. 59--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Contention of petitioner that he sent a letter of protest to the Department against certain proceedings--Department in its comments stating that such letter of assessee was never received--No contravention of Department's comments in respect of receipt of letter existed in rejoinder of petitioner--Issue being controversial question of fact, held, was not fit issue to be determined under supervisory constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Muhammad Nasim for Petitioner.

Shaikh Hyder for Respondents.

--This order disposes of Petitions Nos. D-762 and D-763. Heard Mr. Nasim Advocate for the petitioner who seeks setting aside of orders of assessment, order in appeal and order in revision by Income-tax Authorities. Heard also Mr. Shaikh Hyder Advocate for the respondents. The contention of Mr. Nasim was that the petitioner could not be directed to produce the accounts or give information in respect of his return for the year 1982-83 as it was immune from scrutiny. Learned counsel had relied upon the circular of Central Board of Revenue which had provided that in those cases where the assessee had been immune from scrutiny in the earlier years the scrutiny clause will not be applied against him. In. opposition of this case Mr. Shaikh Hyder, had relied upon para 9 of the Self-Assessment Scheme which itself "had provided that in cases where there was positive evidence of concealment then the provisions of the Self-Assessment Scheme will not apply. Therefore, this point fails as the Scheme provides for scrutiny in cases of concealment.

2. Mr. Nasim had then referred to the assessment order, which had been passed against him and the appellate order and tried to show to us that orders in question were against the norms of natural justice. His submission was that the person who had appeared before the Income-tax Officer was not authorised by him. On the other hand we find that Mr. Zakaria Loya had appeared before Income-tax Officer in the first instance and had taken time. Moreover, the receipt of notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on 24th January, 1983 to the petitioner is not denied and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to keep track of the case and it could not take shelter under the plea that one Mr. Mansoor Ahmed who had appeared for him before the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to appear. No affidavit of Mr. Zakaria Loya has been filed before us to substantiate allegation that Mr. Mansoor was not an associate of Mr. Zakaria Loya. It is common knowledge that different associates of the lawyer firms or the Income-tax Consultants appear before the Courts or the relevant Authorities and they are allowed to appear as such. The petitioner has not sought any damages from Zakaria Loya & Co. for not having represented the petitioner or for having sent a person who was not authorised to represent Zakaria Loya and Co. or the petitioner for that matter. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner was not properly represented is unfounded. The appellate authority has stated that Mr. Mansoor was an associate of Zakaria Loya & Co. and the said finding coming from the concerned department, which has knowledge of such facts, is binding.

3. The position that the petitioner was immune from scrutiny, as shown in. this petition, has been taken up by the petitioner from the initial stage, by a letter of 10th January, 1983/18th January, 1983, is not entirely correct. The Department in its comments has clearly stated that such a letter of the assessee was never received by them and we find that in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner there is no further contravention in respect of the receipt of the said alleged letter of protest allegedly sent by petitioner to the Department. Therefore, this becomes a controversial matter of fact and not fit matter of controversy in the supervisory constitutional jurisdiction.

4. In any case the Department having shown in the letter of 24th January, 1983 that there were certain concealments and suppressions by the petitioner, the case appears to be covered by para. 9 of the Self-Assessment Scheme.

5. Moreover in the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer and the appellate orders the findings are that petitioner has been guilty of concealment and suppression. These findings are findings of facts and they have not been shown to be completely wrong and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the intervention of this Court which has supervisory jurisdiction and it should not exercise its discretion in favour of a wrong doer. The learned counsel has also tried to show that certain findings of the Income-tax Officer were not justified but we are afraid that we are not the appellate authority in respect of these findings and, therefore, the same could have been) agitated only before the higher Income-tax Authorities. Petitioner had three opportunities in the Department but with no success.

6. We find that the petitioner in Petition No. D-763 of 1986 had also failed to reply to the letter, dated 21st March, 1983 issued to him by Income-tax Officer and further it is the petitioner who itself is responsible for the adverse order that the petitioner has received as explained above. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous Applications are also dismissed.

M.B.A./ B-6 / K Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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