Summary: The petitioner filed a review application under Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) seeking a review of the court's order. The petitioner's counsel argued that the court's earlier decision relied on a case (T.R. No.98/08) that was not directly applicable to the present case, and thus, the order should be recalled through the review application.The court considered the arguments and held that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not expressly provide for the power of review. Review was considered a substantive right and can only be exercised if it is expressly conferred by law. The court cited various precedents, including those from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, to support this conclusion. The court stated that in hearing a reference under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the court does not exercise jurisdiction conferred by the CPC but by a special statute. Therefore, the provisions of Order 47 CPC are not applicable. In conclusion, the court held that the review application is not maintainable, and it dismissed the application accordingly.

Summary: 1. Vide judgment of even date,delivered in W.T.A. No. 48/2007,Re: Commissioner of Income _ Tax,Companies Zone, Islamabad Vs SyedZahid Hussain Tirmizi, the impugnedjudgment of learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Islamabad is setaside and the case is remanded back tothe tribunal to decide the same, on othergrounds available in the appeal. 2. Instant appeal stands disposed ofaccordingly.

Summary: 1. Vide Judgment Of Even Date, Delivered In W.T.A. No. 48/2007, Re: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad Vs Syed Zahid Hussain Tirmizi, The Impugned Judgment Of Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Is Set Aside And The Case Is Remanded Back To The Tribunal To Decide The Same, On Other Grounds Available In The Appeal. 2. Instant Appeal Stands Disposed Of Accordingly.

Summary: PLJ 2006 Lahore 842 (DB) Present Muhammad Sair Ali Muhammad Khalid Alvi JJ Ms AJWA CENTRE 17 COOPER ROAD LAHORE - - Appellant versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEWEALTH TAX LAHORE - - Respondent WTA No 59 of 2004 decided on 8122005 Wealth Tax Act 1963 (XV of 1963) - - - - - - Ss 2 (5) (ii) 27 - - Gift of property in favour of 7 persons who entered into agreement to undertake joint venture with all rights and liabilities and charges and to erect and raise plaza thereon - - Assessing officers assessment for relevant year at net wealth of specified amount was maintained and upheld by Income Tax hierarchy upto the level of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - - Legality - - Joint ventures themselves agreed to acquire property for specified purposes much before valuation date and got the site - plan sanctioned from LDA even before executing deed of joint venture on specified date - - Mere by giving effect to dead from specified date would not nullify object of the deed whereunder they had agreed to acquire rights liabilities and charges etc with effect from the date of execution of title deed ie 2411998 - - Question as to whether a group of persons is or is not an Associate of Persons within meaning of S 2 (5) (ii) of Wealth Tax Act 1963 is pure question of fact to be determined keeping in view all attending circumstances - - Appellants admittedly being Association Persons course adopted by income hierarchy was in accordance with law - - Where law provides to do a particular thing in a particular manner then all other modes are necessarily forbidden - - Questions raised by appellants were thus answered in the negative [Pp 846 847] A B Mr Shahbaz Butt Advocate for Appellant Mr Sajjad Ahmad Jafferi Advocate for RespondentJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed.

Summary: 27(1)(4) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---Limitation---The judge mentions that the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax) filed an appeal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, against an order. The judge raised concerns about procedural matters, the delay in filing the appeal, and the non-adherence to the proper legal process.The judge specifically pointed out that the appellant failed to follow the procedure outlined in Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for seeking a reference to the High Court. The judge observes that the appellant did not submit the necessary application for reference within the specified time frame, and consequently, no question of refusal or issuance of notice arises.Furthermore, the judge highlights that the appellant did not diligently address objections raised by the court's office within the stipulated time. The appellant also failed to file the appeal within the statutory time limit, making the appeal time-barred and not in accordance with the law.In light of these observations, the judge dismisses the appeal as being time-barred and not in compliance with legal procedures.