Request to Summon Deceased Journalist’s Tax Record Rejected under Section 216 of Income Tax Ordinance – Defamation Case Between Rauf Klasra and Basit Shuja.
سول مقدمات میں تیسرے شخص کا انکم ٹیکس ریکارڈ طلب کرنے کی قانونی پابندی – اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
ارشد شریف سے 20 لاکھ روپے لیے مگر ان کے جنازے میں شریک نہ ہوئے
مرحوم ارشد شریف کا 2019 کا انکم ٹیکس ریکارڈ طلب کیا جائے
ریویژن خارج کر دی گئی
Must read Judgement
PLJ 2025 Islamabad 298
Present: Muhammad Azam Khan, J.
BASIT SHUJA--Petitioner
versus
RAUF KLASRA--Respondent
C.R. No. 32 of 2025, decided on 29.4.2025.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 151 & O.XVI R. 6--Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002), Ss. 3, 4 & 9--Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001), S. 216--Application for summoning tax record--Dismissed--Suit for recovery of damages--Prohibition regarding requisitioning of record of an individual--Late Arshad Sharif was not a party in instant proceedings--In civil litigation, burden of proof lies upon party asserting a claim--In view of Section 216 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requisitioning income tax records of an individual is prohibited except where proceedings involve Federal Government or an Income Tax Authority or certain other specified cases--In present case, no such circumstances exist necessitating summoning tax records of late Arshad Sharif--Tax returns of Late Arshad Sharif in question before trial Court in any manner and summoning income tax record of a deceased person would not be in fitness of things--Trial Court rightly passed Impugned Order--No illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found warranting interference--Civil revision dismissed. [P. 300 & 304] A, B & C
servant before a Court of any document, declaration, or affidavit filed or the giving of evidence by a public servant in respect thereof
Section 25-A deals with partition of a Hindu undivided family and Section 26-A deals with registration of firms. To me it appears that sub-section (4) Section 150 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was taken from the 1979 Ordinance and was enacted as sub-section (4) of Section 216 by inadvertence. No other explanation is possible because as otherwise sub-section (4) of Section 216 would nullify the whole of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 21
(Y.A.) Civil revision dismissed
