Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 337 2025 SLD 337 = 2024 LHC 4017 = 2024 PLJ 819 = 2025 PTD 137 = (2025) 132 TAX 502
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
I.T.R. No. 10 of 2018, heard on 4th September, 2024. Date of hearing: 4th September, 2024.
AUTHOR(S): MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE AND JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq and Sh. Ikram Elahi for Applicant. Ch. Imran-ul-Haq for
Respondents.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, DISTRICT ZONE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, RAWALPINDI

VS

SH. IKRAM ELLAHI AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 111,111(1),111(1)(b), 111(1)(d),111(1)(d)(i),113A,115(4),122(5 ),133(5), 115

Summary, Element of Retrospectivity;(a) Failure to Propose Relevant Question in Reference ApplicationDetails:• The Department filed a Reference Application before the High Court against the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue’s (ATIR) decision that vacated orders of lower authorities and deleted the addition made under Section 111(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.• However, the Department did not propose any question before the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s findings on the main issue in the case.Held:• Since no specific question was proposed regarding the issue-in-hand, it was deemed that the Tribunal’s observations attained finality.• Failure to challenge the core issue signified a lack of diligence, and no retrospective adjudication could be made on a question that was not raised in time.• The Reference Application was dismissed.Citations:• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Pak Arab Pipe Line Company Ltd. 2014 PTD 982• Messrs Azad Kashmir Logging and SAW Mills Corporation v. Commissioner Income Tax 2017 PTD 1058• The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Fauji Foundation 2021 PTD 1951________________________________________(b) Retrospective Effect of Section 111(1)(d) of the Ordinance, 2001Details:• The Department challenged the Tribunal’s decision, which had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 111(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.• The core issue was whether Section 111(1)(d), inserted through the Finance Act, 2011, applied retrospectively to tax year 2010.Held:• Section 111(1)(d) was inserted via the Finance Act, 2011, and took effect prospectively from 01.07.2011.• Since the tax year under consideration was 2010, the provision could not be applied retrospectively.• As a general principle, tax statutes operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise by the legislature.• The Reference Application was dismissed.Citations:Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore v. Messrs Millat Tractors Limited, Lahore and others 2024 SCMR 700• Sardar Sher Bahadar Khan v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2018 SC 97________________________________________(c) Suppression of Sales & Chargeability to Tax under…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register