Summary: Income Tax Ordinance(XXXI of 1979) [Since repealed]--- ----Ss. 55 & 57---Self-Assessment Scheme---Income tax return---Revised return, non-filing of---Scope---Whether writing a letter to the Income Tax Officer (letter-in-question) by taxpayer while making certain corrections in the columns of the Income Tax Form would ipso facto amount to filing a revised return as envisaged under S. 57 of the Ordinance 1979?---Held, that under the prevalent scheme of law at relevant time as stipulated as per the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ('the Ordinance, 1979'), the applicant / taxpayer was required to file a return of total income under S. 55 of the Ordinance, 1979, whereas, S.59 of the Ordinance, 1979 deals with Self-Assessment Scheme as may be notified by CBR from time to time---Section 59 of the Ordinance, 1979 further provides that a return of total income furnished under S.55 does not include a return of a total income furnished under said S. 57 of the Ordinance, 1979 which provides a revised return of total income---Perusal of the provision of S. 57 of the Ordinance, 1979 reflects that if a person having furnished a return, discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may, without prejudice to any liability incurred by him under any provision of the Ordinance, 1979 or the repealed Act, may furnish a return, at any time before the assessment is made---Assessing Officer while passing his order under S. 61 of the Ordinance, 1979 came to the conclusion that the applicant had filed a revised return which was done after the extended date of filing of return; hence it was not qualified under the Self-Assessment Scheme and was not immune from total audit as well---Though if there is any return which falls within the ambit of S.57 of the Ordinance, 1979, (a revised return or a return which had not been filed in accordance with the Ordinance) it may not qualify under the Self-Assessment Scheme as excluded under S. 59, read with CBR Circular No. 9/1987---In the present case, the applicant / taxpayer had not filed any revised return of its total income which could disqualify its claim under the Self-Assessment Scheme---Applicant had never altered the total amount of income or the tax so payable, and it was only by way of a letter that the applicant approached the Income Tax Officer by stating that the mistake, if at all, was in respect of placing the correct figures in relevant columns---It had no effect on the liability of tax; nor any income was revised upwards or downwards---Income in both the situations was shown as higher by 20% from the income so assessed in the immediate past assessment year; hence, qualified under the Self-Assessment Scheme---Letter-in-question could not be treated as a revision of income or a revised return, without having any direct impact on the total income of the applicant as there was no material on record to treat the said letter or information furnished to the Income Tax Officer, as being a complete revised return falling within the ambit of S. 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Admittedly, the figures shown in the original return as well as in the purported revised return were substantially the same, whereas, the revision was only to the extent of form and not any substance as correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals)---If there was failure on the part of an assessee to submit documents within a prescribed period of time for availing a Self Assessment Scheme, either due to circumstances beyond his control or for sufficient grounds, this by itself could not be made basis to deprive him of the benefit of the said scheme---In essence, the scheme being initiated for benefit of a taxpayer as well as seeking collection of higher taxes with a minimum increase of 20% of income in favour of the Department, has to be construed liberally and not strictly, or in the manner as had been done in the present case---Thus, proposed questions were answered in negative i.e. in favor of the applicant / taxpayer and against the department---High Court set-aside the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stood restored---Reference application, filed by taxpayer, was allowed accordingly. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamruddin Fakhtuddin 2001 PTD 623 ref. Arshad Siraj for Applicant. Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th September, 2023.

Summary: ----S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Dower, claim of---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Respondent/widow claimed to be owner of house given to her in lieu of her dower money (Haq Mehr)---Petitioners/sons of deceased contended that Kabeen Nama was a forged document and their father had divorced respondent in his life time---Validity---Family matters were quasi judicial proceedings and findings arrived at by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court must not be overturned, more particularly in Constitutional petition, unless the findings arrived at by the fora below were found to be arbitrary, perverse, in violation of law or if error was so obvious that it would not be acceptable---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below in favour of respondent/widow, as the same did not suffer from any error of law and facts---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara 2023 SCMR 413; M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari 2023 SCMR 1434 and Mst. Tayyebaa Ambareen and another v. Shafaqat Ali Kiyani and another 2023 SCMR 246 rel. Muhammad Saleem Lashari, Salman Langove and Umar Babar for Petitioners. Habib-ur-Rehman Qambrani for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2023.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) –– Maintenance –– Dower (Haq Mehr) –– Custody of minors –– Suit filed by widow and her children for recovery of maintenance, dower (residential house), dowry articles, and amount entrusted to her –– Allegation by defendants (stepchildren) that second marriage and dower deed (Kabin Nama) were forged and that the plaintiff had been divorced due to immoral character –– Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of widow, holding that the house measuring 50x100 square feet was given to her in lieu of dower and custody of minors was granted to her on basis of Hizanat –– Appellate Court dismissed appeal and affirmed judgment of Trial Court –– High Court declined to interfere under Art.199 of the Constitution holding that family courts’ concurrent findings were well reasoned, based on proper appraisal of evidence, and free from jurisdictional errors. Held, that findings of both courts below did not suffer from arbitrariness, perversity, misreading/non-reading of evidence or error of law or fact warranting interference –– Petition dismissed. Relevant Provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199. Cited Cases: • Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara (2023 SCMR 413) • M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434) • Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) • Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2007 SC 45) • Mst. Tayyebaa Ambareen v. Shafaqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246) Disposition: Petition dismissed. **(b) Constitutional jurisdiction –– Scope –– Art.199, Constitution of Pakistan –– Interference in concurrent findings of family court and appellate court –– Limitation –– Held, that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a substitute for revision or appeal –– High Court may only interfere in exceptional cases where findings are perverse, arbitrary, based on no evidence, or are violative of law or jurisdiction –– In family litigation, unless the lower fora have misapplied law or ignored material evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice, High Court is not empowered to reappraise evidence. Cited Cases: • Mst. Tayyebaa Ambareen v. Shafaqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246) • Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2007 SC 45) • Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) Disposition: Petition dismissed. **(c) Custody of minors –– Principle of Hizanat –– Welfare of minor daughters aged 7 and 6 years –– Held, that under the rule of Hizanat, mother was entitled to custody of minor daughters till their puberty –– Technicalities not to be imported into family litigation involving minors –– Child-sensitive approach must be adopted by courts to mitigate emotional harm caused by adversarial litigation. Cited Case: Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara (2023 SCMR 413) Disposition: Custody granted to mother; petition dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979: ----Ss. 2(f), 2(j), 5 & 13---Landlord-tenant relationship---Oral tenancy---Scope---Eviction proceedings---Petitioners/landlords filed an ejectment application against the respondents/tenants on grounds of default in rent payment and personal use, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the basis that the landlord-tenant relationship was not established---Appellate court upheld the decision---Held, under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, a landlord includes an owner entitled to receive rent, and under Section 2(j), a tenant includes anyone bound to pay rent for possession of the premises---Tenancy can be oral, and absence of a written agreement does not bar ejectment proceedings---Petitioners had established ownership through prior litigation up to the High Court, where the respondents had conceded to being tenants in revisional proceedings---Findings of the lower courts were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence---Landlord-tenant relationship deemed established. ----Cited Cases: • Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din and another (PLD 2009 SC 453) • Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (PLD 2007 SC 45) (b) Landlord and Tenant---Ejectment Proceedings: ----Eviction application---Effect of prior litigation---Scope of revisional court's findings---Petitioners' ownership of the demised premises was upheld in earlier civil litigation, with tenants failing to challenge the decision, rendering it final---High Court, in prior revisional proceedings, had directed petitioners to file an eviction application instead of seeking possession through civil courts---Held, tenants could not now deny the landlord-tenant relationship, having conceded to it in prior proceedings---Tenants' occupation was deemed unauthorized after refusal to vacate despite final ownership determination in favor of petitioners. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2006 SC 549 • Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo v. Barabori Coal Concern Limited and others (1937 AIR (PC) 251) (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan---Interference by High Court in rent matters---Limited scope---Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally not disturbed unless based on glaring irregularities, misreading, or non-reading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice---Held, Rent Controller and Appellate Court failed to appreciate the legal status of oral tenancy, ignored prior judicial findings on ownership, and dismissed the ejectment application solely on erroneous grounds of lack of a written rent agreement---High Court exercised constitutional jurisdiction to rectify jurisdictional errors and ensure protection of property rights under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. ----Cited Cases: • Allies Book Corporation through L.Rs v. Sultan Ahmad and others (2006 SCMR 152) (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 115---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Scope of revisional jurisdiction---Lower courts failed to consider material evidence, including prior High Court findings that affirmed petitioners' ownership and tenants' status as occupants without legal entitlement---Held, when concurrent findings suffer from fundamental misapprehension of law and fact, the High Court is justified in setting aside such findings under revisional jurisdiction---Case remanded for a fresh decision on merits, focusing on rent default and personal need without being prejudiced by prior erroneous findings. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Anwar through legal heirs v. Abdul Shakoor (1982 SCMR 1120) ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court set aside. Case remanded to Rent Controller for fresh decision within one month.

Summary: Plaintiff of a declaration, specific performance, cancellation suit is aggrieved that his application for producing evidence was dismissed.

Summary: Summary Pending