AHMAD SIKANDER vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE Ss — 2025 PTD 231 SUPREME-COURT

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

AHMAD SIKANDER VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE Ss. 111(1)(b) & 122(9)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review petition---Bank account maintained in a foreign country not disclosed in wealth statement---Proper opportunity of hearing to be provided to the tax payer---Scope---Petitioner (tax payer) was charged to tax under section 111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance') by the Assessment Officer---Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner Inland Revenue was dismissed---Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the ITA before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue which was allowed, and against the said order, the respondent (department) filed Income Tax Reference before the High Court which was allowed---Finally the petitioner filed civil petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed, hence the present review petition---Contentions of petitioner were that he had submitted his returns with all the necessary details and nothing was concealed; that all the necessary documents including the foreign income and assets statement along with the bank statement and foreign loan documents were e-filed which were available at e-Portal of E-FBR; that all these documents were supplied to the respondent through post as well, but the same were not considered by the fora below; that even otherwise, copies of the relevant documents were to be obtained from London, which could not be obtained in time on account of Covid-19 restrictions; that immediately upon receiving the documents they were produced before the Tribunal in order to substantiate his stance; that such documents were not new evidence, rather the same were in support of the information already available at e-Portal, but the High Court had ignored the factum of availability of these documents at e-Portal and had wrongly considered them as fresh ones; that while arguing the matter before the Supreme Court, the petitioner tried his best to highlight all these facts and to establish that the High Court had erred in law by considering the documents as new evidence, but no proper opportunity was provided to him by the Supreme Court---Validity---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: High Court while deciding the Reference declared that the documents provided to the Tribunal were new evidence---Petitioner had raised all legal and factual grounds in his petition before the Supreme Court, but it seems that the grounds urged by the petitioner escaped the attention of the Supreme Court while deciding the civil petition---Petitioner claimed that the findings of the fora below raised serious questions of law and facts, therefore, reappraisal of the record was necessary in the best interest of justice, but the needful was not done by the Supreme Court at the time of hearing his petition---This raised sufficient reasons to accept the contentions of the petitioner---Even otherwise, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent (department), if an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner---Review petition was allowed; and the order under review passed by the Supreme Court was re-called with the direction that Civil Petition shall be restored to its original number and be fixed for hearing]---[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: Petitioner had not raised any ground as envisaged under Rule 1 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure---Petitioner had failed to establish that he had discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order or judgment---After a careful examination of the leave refusing order in the Civil Petition, as well as that judgment of the High Court, no compelling reasons were found to entertain the present review petition---High Court had diligently addressed all issues raised thoroughly and decided the case on the basis of facts and grounds---All pleas raised in present review petition had already been addressed by the High Court and were duly considered by the Supreme Court while passing the order under review---Moreover petitioner had failed to establish any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review---Review petition was dismissed.

AHMAD SIKANDER vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE Ss — 2025 PTD 231 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD