Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 52 1975 SLD 52 (1976) 33 TAX 1
Lahore High Court
T.R. No. 124 of 1975, decision dated: 28-10-1975
MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate, for the Applicant. M.A. Lone, Advocate, for the respondent

RAJPUT METAL WORKS LTD., GUJRANWALA

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 13

[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].........Section 13-Rejection of accounts-Question of law or fact-Tribunal's finding based on cogent reasons and proved facts-Whether gives rise to question of law-Held no. The Income Tax Officer adduced cogent reasons for rejection of the account version and his order was substantially affirmed on further appeal by the Tribunal. In this respect the Tribunal restored the order passed Income Tax Officer in the exercise of its own based on roved facts and no question of law worth reference for the opinion by the High Court arises out of that part of its order; B. Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)-Section 13, proviso-Rejection of accounts-In rejecting the accounts and proceeding to make additions the Tribunal was conscious of powers vested in the Income Tax Officer in making assessment under Section 13, read with Section 23 Tribunal not expressly adverting to these provisions in giving its finding--Whether vitiates the appellate order-Held no It is evident that in rejecting the accounts and proceeding to make the impugned additions the Tribunal was conscious of the powers vested in the Income Tax Officer in completing the assessment under Section 13 read with Section 23(3) of the Act. The mere fact that the Tribunal did not expressly advert to these provisions cannot per se vitiate the appellate order passed by it. C. Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)-Section 13, proviso-Rejection of accounts--Ad-hoc additions-Rejection of book version by Tribunal based on cogent reasons-Ad-hoc additions made by Tribunal not based on computation of income on any basis or relevant consideration-Additions, whether sustainable-Held no; The Tribunal on further appeal adduced cogent reasons for rejecting the accounts and the declared version based on these, but has at the same time made an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 30,000 in the Pak Pipe Industries accounts and Ks. 15,000 in the Asian Steel Re-Rolling account. In this respect the Tribunal did not make the computation of the income of the assessee on any basis whatsoever. These additions appear to have been made arbitrarily and on no relevant considerations. The Income Tax Officer relied on the past…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492