Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2054 2024 SLD 2054 (2024) 129 TAX 691
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.R.P. 783/2023 in C.P.L.A. 6-L/2023 decided on 04.06.2024, Date of hearing: 04.06.2024. (Against the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Court)
PRESENT: SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND ATHAR MINALLAH, JJ.
Dr. Ikramul Haq, ASC, for the Petitioner. (Through video link from Lahore). Ms. Asma Hamid, ASC, for the
Respondents. (Through video link from Lahore).

ALLIED BANK LIMITED

VS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE, ETC.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 2(13),120,122,122(5A) ,127,210

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 188

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XLIX OF 2001)-----Sections: 2(13), 120, 120, 122, 127 & 210 - Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980 - Amendment of assessment - Delegation of powers by the CIR to ACIR u/s 122(5A) - Referring case to the Lahore High Court by the petitioner to answer question as to whether CIR can delegate his powers u/s 210 to amend or further amend u/s 122(5) of The Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Dismissal of appeal by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court against the judgment of single judge in chamber - Leave to appeal refused by the Supreme Court with the observation that the counsel of the petitioner did not bring into the notice of the Court an unreported judgment of Supreme Court in CA Nos. 1669 to 1692 of 2013, decided on 06.02.2019, referred to in note to Para 9 of the order - Revision petition for the expunction of said observations - Prayer for- FACTS Amendment was made in an assessment by the ACIR u/s 122(5A) - question cropped up as to whether CIR could delegate his powers u/s 210 to ACIR to make amendment in the assessment, which is exclusive domain of CIR - Single Judge in chamber decided case against the petitioner - Division Bench of Lahore High Court, also confirmed the judgment of Single Judge in chamber - Leave to appeal refused by the Supreme Court and it was observed that the counsel of the petitioner did not bring into the notice of the Court, the impact of unreported judgment of Supreme Court during his arguments - Filing of Revision Petition against said observation- ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in footnote of paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner had not brought to the notice of the Court the earlier judgment of this case rendered in The Bank of Punjab v. The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Civil…
🔒
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