IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.2732-L of 2016  
(Against the judgment dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Lahore 
High Court Multan Bench Multan in T.R. No.26/2013) 
 
 
Commissioner Inland Revenue Multan 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Sh. Muhammad Amin Arshad 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Muhammad Shakil, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Sheikh Zafar-ul-Islam, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.01.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- The respondent, a 
Commission Agent/Broker, declared an income of Rs.34,42,374/- on 
account of supplies to M/s Shujabad Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd; he assessed his 
income tax as Rs.3,42,437/-. The Deputy Commissioner Inland 
Revenue, however, detected receipt of payments through bank cheques 
far 
beyond 
the 
declared 
amount, 
running 
to 
the 
tune 
of 
Rs.56,12,36,365/- to set in motion through notice dated 24.9.2012, 
proceedings under sections 122(5)(9) and 111(1) of the Income Tax 
Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”), 
considering the detection as definite information and pursuant to a 
show cause notice determined tax liability vide order dated 18.2.2013 
as under: 
 
Income determined u/s 39  
 
Rs.56,12,36,365/- 
Income Tax Payable @ 25 % 
 
Rs.14,03,09,091/- 
Income Tax Deducted as FTR  
as per Block A 
 
 
 
Rs.3,42,437/- 
  
 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.2732-L of 2016 
2
Appeal filed by the respondent before the Commissioner Inland Revenue 
(Appeals) Multan met with no better fate vide order dated 18.3.2013, 
however, reversed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Lahore 
Bench Multan (Camp at Multan) vide order dated 16.05.2013, assailed 
by the Department through Tax Reference No.26 of 2013. The High 
Court declined to answer the reference in affirmative, vide impugned 
order dated 9.6.2016, on the ground that in the absence of “any definite 
information” that too without confrontation to the assessee involving a 
factual controversy, the Department could not invoke the advisory 
jurisdiction.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
learned High Court failed to consider facts of the case in their 
contextual 
backdrop 
that 
unambiguously 
constituted 
“definite 
information” within the contemplation of section 122(5) of the 
Ordinance, duly confirmed by documented transactions through 
banking channel, additionally verified by no other than the recipient i.e. 
M/s Shujabad Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. The impugned order being slipshod 
calls for interference, concluded the learned counsel. Learned counsel 
for the respondent has, however, defended the view taken by the 
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, by maintaining that refusal by the 
High Court to decline interference being well within the remit of law did 
not admit space for a probe into factual controversy. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Definite information within the contemplation of section 
122(5) of the Ordinance contemplates an assessment in respect of a 
relevant tax year by the Commissioner, upon satisfaction of the 
conditions: 
i. 
any 
income 
chargeable 
to 
tax 
has 
escaped 
 
assessment; or 
ii. 
total income has been under-assessed, or assessed 
 
at too low a  rate, or has been the subject of 
 
excessive relief or refund; or  
iii. 
any amount under a head of income has been 
 
misclassified. 
Position taken by the department has a substance inasmuch as the 
respondent did not deny payments, the modes thereof and product wise 
quantum of the purchases. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to 
substantiate his contention qua business activities with M/s Shujabaad 
Oil Mills Private Limited in the light of banking transactions. The 
Civil Petition No.2732-L of 2016 
3
department has rightly determined the income of the respondent under 
section 39 of the Ordinance along with income tax chargeable and 
penalty consequent thereupon under section 182(2) thereof. The 
learned High Court failed to appreciate the law on the subject and 
passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner; the same, therefore, 
cannot sustain; the orders passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue 
(Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue being well 
within the remit of law are restored. Petition is converted into appeal 
and same is allowed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th January, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/- 
