COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE vs MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss — 2025 PTD 58 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.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss.131 & 133---Determination of controversy---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, jurisdiction of---Advisory jurisdiction of High Court in Reference Application---Scope---Department filed Reference Application as the assessments made by the concerned Commissioner Inland Revenue (BTB) ['the Commissioner-in-question'] was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Appellate Tribunal') on the ground that the Commissioner-in-question had no jurisdiction in the cases of existing taxpayers---Validity---Appellate Tribunal is the last fact finding forum in hierarchy of taxation laws, therefore, it is bound to discharge its functions diligently---Any opinion, on law, by the Appellate Tribunal would lose credence for consideration by High Court in advisory jurisdiction, if findings of fact arrived at by it are not trustworthy---In the present matter/case of Respondent /taxpayer, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to properly consider jurisdiction vested with the Commissioner-in-question vide an order (dated 20.08.2014)---Order (dated 20.08.2014) issued by the Chief Commissioner spoke loud and clear on aspect of jurisdiction, which order had not been gone through by Appellate Tribunal---As such, impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, being outcome of non- reading and misreading of record, was not sustainable in the eye of law---Reference Applications were decided in favour of the Applicant. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss.2(13), 207, 208 & 209---Commissioner---Jurisdiction---Section 209 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') deals with the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities while jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities is defined under S.207 of the Ordinance, 2001 and their appointments under S.208 of the Ordinance, 2001---Section 209(1) of the Ordinance, 2001 empowers the Chief Commissioners, the Commissioners and the Commissioners (Appeals) to perform and exercise powers as assigned to them in respect of persons or classes of areas on the directions of the Board ;while proviso to S.209 of the Ordinance, 2001 empowers both the FBR and the Chief Commissioner to transfer jurisdiction in respect of cases or persons from one Commissioner to another---Definition of the term 'Commissioner' as provided under S. 2(13) of the Ordinance, 2001 postulates that 'Commissioner' means a person appointed as Commissioner Inland Revenue under S. 208 and includes any other authority. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss.122 & 209---Tax authority---Jurisdiction---Department filed Reference Application as the assessments made under S. 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') by the concerned Commissioner Inland Revenue (BTB) ['the Commissioner-in-question'] was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Tribunal') on the ground that the Commissioner-in-question had no jurisdiction in the cases of existing taxpayers---Submission of the applicant-department was that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order ignoring the jurisdiction of Commissioner-in-question [Inland Revenue (BTB) Rawalpindi] vested in him specifically by the Chief Commissioner in terms of S. 209(1) of the Ordinance, 2001 vide an order dated 20.08.2014 ('Chief Commissioner's order') having been issued in said regard---Validity---Vide Chief Commissioner's order, he (Chief Commissioner) transferred jurisdiction in respect of respondent/taxpayer from relevant/earlier Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit and Enforcement) to the Commissioner-in-question---No prejudice was caused to respondent/taxpayer in connection with question of jurisdiction in light of the Chief Commissioner's order vesting jurisdiction to the Commissioner-in-question---Chief Commissioner 's order spoke loud and clear on aspect of jurisdiction, which order had not been gone through by Appellate Tribunal---As such, impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, being outcome of non-reading and misreading of record, was not sustainable in the eye of law---Reference Applications were decided in favour of the Applicant. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss.122 & 209---Forum of first instance---Jurisdiction---Objection to such jurisdiction not taken---Effect---Department filed Reference Application as the assessments made under S. 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001'), by the concerned Commissioner Inland Revenue (BTB) ['the Commissioner-in-question'] was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Tribunal') on the ground that the Commissioner-in-question had no jurisdiction in the cases of existing taxpayers---Validity---Record revealed the fact that the respondent/taxpayer had not taken the objection with regard to jurisdiction of Commissioner-in-question at the time of filing reply to show-cause notice or at time of filing appeal before the concerned Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Appeals)---As no objection to the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal was taken in the forum of first instance, it could not be raised either in appeal or in revision---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, being outcome of non- reading and misreading of record, was not sustainable in the eye of law---Reference Applications were decided in favour of the applicant.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE vs MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Ss — 2025 PTD 58 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD