Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 14 1994 SLD 14 = 1994 PTD 112 (1993) 68 TAX 166 1994 PTCL 204
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
A. T. As. Nos.517/LB and 518/LB of 1990-91, decision dated:28-03-1992
ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Qaiser Yahya, D.R. for
Respondent

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 66A,111,134

(a) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---Ss. 134 & 66-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---No appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.66-A of the Ordinance where the order passed by him had only cancelled the assessment directing a fresh assessment to be made--�Only such order passed by Appellate Assistant Commissioner under S.156 of the Ordinance rectifying a mistake were appealable to the Tribunal as having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee.1985 SCMR 116; 1986 SCMR 1544; 1986 SCMR 1607; Chambers Concise Dictionary, p.402; Law Terms and Phrases Legally Explained by Mr. M. Iqbal Mokal, p.338; (1956) 2 ITR 607; (sic) SCMR 166; PLD 1965 Kar.182; PLD 1972 Pesh (sic); 1991 PTD 850; In re: Highway Petroleum Service 1977 PTD 183; In re: National Food 1991 PTD 850; In re: Haji Abdullah Khan and others P L D 1965 SC 690 and P L D 1972 Lab. 142 ref.Per Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Judicial Member. (b) Interpretation of statutes------ Inaccurate phraseology of draftsman should not be allowed to nullify a provision made by the legislature if the phraseology is inconsistent with the legal norms.The error (if any) in placing the coma (or colon) in the enactment is, to be ignored on the well-settled principles of interpretation of statutes, which permit that inaccurate phraseology of draftsman should not be allowed to nullify a provision made by the legislature if the phraseology is inconsistent with the legal norms.In re: Highway Petroleum Service 1977 PTD 183 ref.Per Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Judicial Member: --(c) Maxim-----Ubi jus ibi remedium---Every person affected by an order should have at least one right of appeal.(d) Income-tax-----Appeal---Appeal being a statutory right, appeal could only be filed if specifically provided in the statute.Wahid Bux and another v. Afzal Transport Company P L D 1966 Lah.684 ref.(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-------S. 134---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Right of appeal is not unqualified.(f) Income-tax------Appeal---Right of appeal is statutory right and must be provided by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register