FAUJI FRESH AND FREEZE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss — 2024 PTD 1068 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FAUJI FRESH AND FREEZE LTD. VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss. 114 (6)(ba), third proviso [as inserted / amended by the Finance Act, 2015]---Revision of tax return---Commissioner, powers of---Scope---There was no reasonable cause to sustain the impugned order of Single Judge of High Court which proceeded on an erroneous view of the amendment brought about through insertion of third proviso to S. 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Said amendment was brought about by the Finance Act, 2015---Issue involved was relating to tax years 2010, 2012 and 2013---Application for revision of the assessment in respect of tax year 2010 was filed on 13.8.2015 whereas in respect of tax years 2012 and 2013 the applications were filed on 12.06.2015---Controversy turned on the retrospectivity of the amendment and as to whether the Commissioner was obliged to pass an order for revision of return before the expiration of 60 days for the date when the revision of date was sought---By the proviso it was laid down that where the Commissioner had not made the order of approval in writing for revision of a return within 60 days, the approval required under clause (ba) shall be deemed to have been granted by the Commissioner and the conditions specified in clause (ba) shall not apply---Single Judge of the High Court while holding that the amendment was substantive in nature refused to apply it retrospectively, however, while doing so, the Single Judge fell in error by holding that "tax years prior to 2015 shall be excluded from its operation"---Clearly, the amendment did not have any reference to the tax years and was merely related to the powers of the Commissioner to decide the revision of return expeditiously and not later than 60 days---Said amendment clearly applied to pending proceedings before the Commissioner and whether they related to the year 2015 or to prior tax years---Respondents had not been able to rebut said proposition---Division Bench of High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court and held that since the Commissioner did not decide the revision of return of the appellant before the expiration of 60 days, it shall be deemed to have been granted by the Commissioner---Intra-Court appeal, filed by the taxpayer / company, was allowed, in circumstances.

FAUJI FRESH AND FREEZE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Ss — 2024 PTD 1068 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD