IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI  
 
Civil Appeal Nos. 656 to 659 of 2011 
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 24.12.2010 of the 
High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in WTRA No. 27 to 
30/1998) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commissioner Inland Revenue Legal 
Division, RTO III Karachi  
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
Mst. Yasmeen Bano  
(in C.A.656/2011) 
 
Munawar Ali  
(in C.A.657/2011) 
 
Mst. Tahira Bano   
(in C.A.658/2011) 
 
Ghulam Muhammad 
(in C.A.659/2011) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Riaz Hussain Azam, ASC 
a/w Mansoor Akhtar, Chief Legal 
 
 
For the respondent(s):  
Mr. M. Saleem Thepdawala, ASC 
(in C.A. 656-657/2011) 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
24.02.2020 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. The point in issue 
is whether the limitation period prescribed for the exercise 
of revisional power by the Commissioner under Section 
25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 (“Act”) can be ascribed 
the limitation period laid down in Section 25(1) of the Act 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
2
which also provides for the exercise of revisional power by 
the Commissioner but under different conditions. The 
learned 
High 
Court 
has 
answered 
the 
foregoing 
proposition in the affirmative. On that basis the order of 
the Appellate Tribunal dated 16.10.1990 has been set 
aside.  
2. 
 
The facts of the case pertain to the assessment 
year 1986-87. The initial assessment order was rectified 
by the Taxing Officer on 30.06.1987 upon the filing of a 
revised Return by the respondent-assessee. The liability of 
the respondent-assessee was thereby reduced. In exercise 
of Suo Moto power the Commissioner revised that 
assessment vide his order dated 29.03.1990 whereby the 
original assessment order was restored. The learned 
Tribunal, without citing any legal authority, held that the 
applicable limitation period for the Commissioner to do so 
was two years under Section 25(2) of the Act but did not 
interfere with the order dated 29-03-1990 passed by the 
Commissioner.  
3. 
 
We have carefully considered the pleas of the 
learned counsel on the question: whether in the absence 
of a limitation period being prescribed under Section 25(2) 
of the Act, the said omission can be supplied with 
reference to the limitation period under Section 25(1) of 
the Act. At this stage it would be appropriate to reproduce 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
3
the provisions of Section 25(1) and Section 25(2) of the 
Act.  
“25. 
Powers of Commissioner to revise orders of 
subordinate authorities.— (1) The Commissioner may, 
either of his own motion or on application made by an 
assessee in this behalf, call for the record of any 
proceeding under this Act in which an order has been 
passed by any authority subordinate to him, and may 
make such inquiry, or cause such inquiry to be made 
and, subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such 
order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the 
assessee, as the Commissioner thinks fit:  
 
Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise 
any order under this sub-section in any case— 
(a) 
… 
(b) 
… 
(c) 
… 
(d) 
where the order is sought to be revised 
by the Commissioner of his own motion, if such 
order is made more than one year previously.   
(2)  Without prejudice to the provisions contained in 
sub-section (1), the Commissioner may call for and 
examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, 
and if he considers that any order passed therein by a 
Wealth Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is 
prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he may, after 
giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, and 
after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he 
deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the 
circumstances of the case justify, including an order 
enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling it 
and directing a fresh assessment.”   
 
4. 
 
It may be noticed that Section 25(1) ibid 
provides a revisional remedy to the assessee for obtaining 
an order that is not prejudicial to his interest. The 
prescribed limitation period for invoking this remedy is 
one year. On the other hand, Section 25(2) ibid confers a 
Suo Moto power on the Commissioner to revise orders in 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
4
the interest of the revenue for which no limitation period 
is prescribed. The learned High Court has compared the 
two provisions of Section 25 and has read into the law by 
interpreting its sub Sections (1) and (2) to be identical in 
their effect. As a result, it has been held that the limitation 
governing the Suo Moto exercise of revisional power by the 
Commissioner under Section 25(2) of the Act is also one 
year.  
5. 
 
We have perused the entire Act but have found 
no limitation period for Section 25(2) ibid. It is trite law 
that when a statute is silent about limitation, a reasonable 
time limit is to be supplied by the Courts. In carrying out 
this exercise, ‘no general standards can be set out, and 
such time is and shall be dependant again on the purpose 
of the law to be achieved by an act or function to be 
performed’ [ref: Federal Land Commission through 
Chairman Vs. Rais Habib Ahmed and others (PLD 2011 
SC 842 at paragraph 11)]. In our considered view, the 
purpose of Section 25(2) is to protect the interest of the 
revenue and to prevent wealth from escaping assessment. 
This same purpose is also served by two other sections in 
the Act: 17 and 17B. The former provides for the exercise 
of Suo Moto re-assessment power by the Deputy 
Commissioner 
to 
prevent 
wealth 
from 
escaping 
assessment, and the latter provides for the exercise of Suo 
Moto revisional power by the Inspecting Additional 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
5
Commissioner to protect the interest of the revenue. The 
limitation period for Section 17 was amended in 1981 by 
Section 17A. For facility of reference, Sections 17A and 17 
are produced below: 
17A. Time limit for competition of assessment and 
re-assessment.- (1) … 
(2) No order of assessment or re-assessment shall be 
made under section 17.- 
(a) 
where 
any 
proceeding 
for 
an 
assessment or re-assessment is pending 
on the first day of July, 1981, at any 
time after the expiration of period of four 
years commencing on and from that 
date; or 
(b) … 
(c) … 
(3) … 
(4) … 
“17B. 
Powers 
of 
Inspecting 
Additional 
Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner’s 
order.-(1) The Inspecting Additional Commissioner 
may call for and examine the record of any proceeding 
under this Act, and if he considers that any order 
passed therein by a Wealth Tax Officer is erroneous in 
so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he 
may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being 
heard and after making, or causing to be made, such 
enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order 
thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, 
including an order enhancing or modifying the 
assessment, 
or 
cancelling 
the 
assessment 
and 
directing a fresh assessment to be made. 
(2) … 
(3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made after 
the expiry of four years from the date of the order 
sought to be revised.” 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
6
6.  
 
It can be noticed that the prescribed limitation 
period under both the sections is four years from the date 
of assessment. While both provisions are evidence that re-
assessment and revisional power exercised to protect the 
interest of the revenue shall be governed by a liberal 
limitation period i.e. four years, it is Section 17B that is 
particularly relevant to the facts of the present case. 
Section 17B is almost a verbatim copy of Section 25(2). In 
fact, Section 25(2) was only omitted from the Act in 1992 
after Section 17B was inserted into the Act by Finance Act 
1992. Section 17B is then the successor to Section 25(2). 
Therefore, it is only logical that the limitation period 
governing Section 17B should also govern Section 25(2). 
Any finding to the contrary will go against the spirit of this 
revisional power protecting the interest of the revenue, the 
purpose of which was to ensure that no taxable wealth 
escaped assessment. Similarly, to hold that the limitation 
period in Section 25(2) should be governed by the 
limitation period in Section 25(1) will be an incorrect 
conclusion because the two provisions have different 
purposes. The former protects the interests of the revenue 
whereas the latter protects the interests of the assessee.  
7.  
 
Clearly then, the revisional power under 
Section 25(2) of the Act is to be exercised within four years 
from the date of assessment. In the present case, the date 
of assessment is 30.06.1987. Consequently, the revisional 
C.A. NO. 656 OF 2011 ETC. 
7
order passed by the Commissioner on 29.03.1990 is 
within time. Accordingly, the judgments given by the 
learned Tribunal and the learned High Court are in error. 
They are set aside. The order of the Commissioner dated 
29.03.1990 is restored. Consequently these appeals are 
allowed.       
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad   
24.2.2020 
Meher LC        
 
 
 
 APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
