I.T.R.A. No.170 of 2011
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar.
Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Unit, Karachi. ...………Applicant
Versus
M/s KASB Bank Limited. …...…….Respondent
Date of hearing 10.10.2013
Date of order 10.10.2013
Mr. Muhammad Younus Khan holding brief for Mr. Akhtar Ali Mehmood, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Naveed A. Andrabi, advocate for the respondent.
-----------------
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J: Through instant reference application, the applicant/department has proposed the following question of law, which according to the applicant arises from the impugned order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi in ITA No.208/KB/10 (Assessment Year 1999-2000) and ITA No.209 208/KB/10 (Assessment Year 2001-02).
“Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified to delete the addition made under ‘Interest Credited to Suspense Account’ instead of leaving the window open for examination of relevant bad debts interest credited to suspense account on merits by the tax authorities as settled by the Honourable Sindh High Court in its decision reported as 2007 PTCL 568?”
2. Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset states that the question proposed in the reference application has not been properly drafted as such controversy was not before the learned Tribunal, whereas the only issue involved was with regard to deletion of the addition made under ‘Interest Credited to Suspense Account’, which controversy, according to learned counsel for the respondent, has duly been resolved by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of PICIC v. C.I.T (2008) 97 Tax 64 Karachi.
3. Mr. Muhammad Younus Khan is holding brief for Mr. Akhtar Ali Mehmood, advocate, who is reportedly busy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Islamabad. On 28.03.2013, when the learned counsel for the applicant was present, reference to the aforesaid judgment of this Court was made and the learned counsel requested for time to go through with the said judgment. On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.09.2013 also, similar was the position.
4. We have examined the record as well as the impugned order and also gone through with the decision, as referred hereinabove by the learned counsel for the respondent. We are of the opinion that the controversy involved in the instant reference application has already been decided in substance by a Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment. However, while answering the question in the instant reference application we would modify the question in the following manner:
“Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified to delete the addition made under ‘Interest Credited to Suspense Account’?”
By respectfully following the decision of this Court in the case of PICIC v. C.I.T (2008) 97 Tax 64 Karachi as referred to hereinabove, instant reference application is dismissed and the question proposed is answered in affirmative against the applicant.
J U D G E
J U D G E