| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2690 2004 SLD 2690 (2004) 90 TAX 298 2004 PTD 2366 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
I.T.A. No. 288/LB of 1996, decided on 19th March, 2004.
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent. Date of hearing. 19th March, 2004.
I.T.A. No. 288/LB of 1996, decided on 19th March, 2004.
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent. Date of hearing. 19th March, 2004.
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 Ordinance, 1979
Section: 13,62,111,116
ORDER JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).- The appellant Department through this appeal has objected to the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), dated 16-10-1995 annulling the penalty order passed by the DCIT. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/assessee. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid representing the appellant Department has contended that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in admitting the appeals filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under section 111 of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as this issue was already subjected by the learned CIT(A) vide order, dated 10-6-1995. According to the learned D.R. no appeal could be filed at the same appellate forum regarding any issue which has already been settled there. She has contended that the demand notice of penalty was served upon by the assessee on 24-1-1993, whereas regular appeal has been filed on 17-7-1995 and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by time limitation and their adjudication due to the expiry of limitation prescribed under the law. He has contended that once the learned CIT(A) has admitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time-barred, there was no justification for annulling the penalty order with the observation that the assessee cannot be punished due to negligence of his representative/counsel for non-filing of appeal against penalty order under section 111. She has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the ignorance of law is of no excuse. She has, therefore, requested that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) may please be vacated and the order of the DCIT passed under section 111 of the Ordinance may please be restored. We have heard the learned DR and have also perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and the order passed by the DCIT under section 111 of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee in this case is an individual deriving share income from Registered Firm, purchased land measuring 1-Kanal situated at Johar Town, Lahore for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000. The Assessing Officer on scrutiny of transaction found the purchase…
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