AL MASOOM PRODUCTS vs COMMISSIONER (APPEAL-VI) INLAND REVENUE S — 2025 PTD 1433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

AL MASOOM PRODUCTS VS COMMISSIONER (APPEAL-VI) INLAND REVENUE S. 24a---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 126a & 127 [as amended vide Finance act, 2024]---Order passed by tax authorities---Reasoning, absence of---Effect---Commissioner Inland Revenue (appeals) being final appellate authority /forum---Powers and obligations---Record reveals that while passing both the impugned judgments, neither any reasoning has been assigned nor the law has been referred to by the tax authorities---Tax authorities are required to act in a judicious manner with fair and justifiably reasoned orders as S. 24a of General Clauses act, 1897, reiterates the principle that statutory power is to be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and the advancement of the purposes of the enactment and further clarifies that an executive authority must give reasons for its decision and any action by such authority which is violative of the said principle is liable to be struck down---Pertinently, pursuant to the Finance act, 2024 and thereafter through Finance amendment act, 2024, such orders of the Commissioner (appeals) are now assailable by way of Reference application under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before High Court to consider not only a question of law but also the questions of fact, however, the same has only burdened the High Court(s) with more and more tax matters---Officers of the Department, including the Commissioner (appeals), as a matter of routine are passing orders in a slipshod manner without even discussing the law or facts of a particular case---Instead, the entire response / grounds are reproduced in their orders and then the contention is rejected by way of compendious / brief orders---In the present case, both the officers below have failed to give any reasoning; nor have determined any questions of law or even facts, based on which High Court can answer the proposed questions; which nullifies the idea of providing a direct Reference before High Court against orders of Commissioner (appeals) as instead of reducing litigation, it has increased the pendency of tax matters---Such orders are being remanded to the assessing officers starting a fresh round of cumbersome proceedings and is not helping the Court or the litigants, including the tax department, in any manner, for swift disposal of like matters---It is high time for FBR and its Legal Division(s) to look into this and issue instructions as well as educate / train the concerned Officers in the adjudication and appellate hierarchy to pass well-reasoned orders in line with S. 24a of the General Clause act, 1897, after taking into consideration all factual as well as legal aspects of a case so that the High Court(s) can answer the proposed questions of law and facts in an apt manner while exercising its Reference jurisdiction under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---High Court set-aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (appeals) as well as the assessing Officer and the matter was remanded to the original authority, who would decide the same with a reasoned and a speaking order---Reference applications were allowed accordingly.

AL MASOOM PRODUCTS vs COMMISSIONER (APPEAL-VI) INLAND REVENUE S — 2025 PTD 1433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD