I.T.R.A. No. 351 of 2010
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti
Date of hearing : 08.11.2012
Date of order : 08.11.2012
Applicant : The Commissioner Inland Revenue
through Mr. Jawaid Farooqi, advocate
Respondent : Mr. Zia Naqi C/O Prime Management Services
Nemo for respondent
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi,J Through instant reference application, following questions have been proposed by the applicant, which according to learned counsel for the applicant arise from the impugned order.
1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A)/ATIR was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.19,400,000/- allegedly claimed by taxpayer as a loan from a relative?
2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in not treating the three merged transactions between Grandfather, Granddaughter and the taxpayer as collusive arrangement in the light of the learned ITAT’s case law cited as 1998 PTD 1924, wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 13 of the Repealed Ordinance, which are similar to section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are applicable to loan taken through collusive arrangement?
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the instant case the transaction of obtaining loan from a relative by the assesse was collusive in nature, therefore, both the forums below were not justified to delete the addition made by the taxation officer, and to hold that transaction was genuine. Learned counsel has readout the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Taxation Officer.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, it appears that both the forums below have recorded their finding of fact by holding that the loan transaction was duly verifiable as the loan was received through normal Banking Channel. It has been further held that taxation officer has recorded his finding merely on the basis of presumption and assumption.
4. We are of the view that such concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the appellate forums, which besides being correct, cannot be interfered unless proved to be perverse. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show any perversity or error in such finding recorded by tribunal in its impugned order. Accordingly, we are of the view that no question of law arises from the impugned order, whereas the findings recorded by both the forums below are based on finding of fact which depicts correct law. Accordingly, instant reference application having no merits, is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith listed application.
JUDGE
JUDGE