Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLG 2 1972 SLD 2 (1995) 72 TAX 103 1995 TAX 103 1996 PTD 25
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos.65(IB) to 68(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 16-05-1995
JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Muhammad Khan D.R. for Appellant. Khalid Majeed, F.CA for
Respondent

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 156,FirstSched.,PartIV,2(16)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----S.156---Rectification of mistake---Scope. The scope of rectification order would extend to the cases where there is a patent mistake both of law and fact staring a person in the face requiring no further investigation or enquiry. Therefore, the I.T.O. while rectifying the mistake or an error in the assessment or refund order under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance need not confine himself to the consideration of only those errors which are apparent on the face of the order but also he could refer to the record of proceedings of assessments or refund order to discover an error which is noticed by him or which is pointed out to him by the assessee. An error in the assessment resulting from the failure to apply indisputable state of law could be corrected by I.T.O. under section 156 of the Ordinance provided an error was apparent from the record of the assessment. C.B.R. v. SITE PLD 1985 SC 97; T. S. Bala Ram v. Volkart (1981) 82 ITR 50 and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Motors and General Finance Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 424 ref. C.I.T. Karachi v. Adam Limited Karachi PLD 1969 Kar. 300; Khalid `Adamjis case (1983) 48 Tax 56 (H.C. Kar.) and 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1100 distinguished. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----S.2 (16)---"Public company"---Definition---Determination of status of a company as public company---Essentials. I.T.O. v. National Rubber Manufacturers (1975) 98 ITR 377 quoted. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S.156, First Sched., Part IV, para. B (2)---Rectification of mistake---Mistake apparent on face of record---Company---Status of company was treated as "public company"---Record showed that companys 51.75% shares were owned by another company which was registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the remaining shares were held by a non-resident company and its shares were not transacted on the stock exchange nor was it a trust ---Income¬ tax Officer, however, accepted the status of said company as public company as declared in the return of income filed by assessee and calculated the tax liability accordingly but subsequently realised that assessee did not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492