| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2792 2005 SLD 2792 2005 PTD 1770 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Income Tax Appeal No. 508 of 1998 Complaint No. 331-L of 2004, 04/08/2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Income Tax Appeal No. 508 of 1998 Complaint No. 331-L of 2004, 04/08/2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Before Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman court Wattan Technical Industry, Gujranwala
VS
Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Result: Appeal dismissed ORDER The appellant-assessee, is engaged in the manufacturing of corrugated boxes, used in the packing. For the assessment year 1993-94, its claim of exemption from the levy of tax with reference to Clause (118-E), Part-I of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, was accepted, but during the proceedings it was noted by the Assessing Officer that the appellant-company has purchased some machinery worth Rs.38,000, which was not reflected in the statement of accounts for the period ending on 30-6-1993. Resultantly, while exercising his powers Under section 62 of the Ordinance, the Assessing Officer added Rs.38,000 as a deemed income, by resorting to the provisions contained in section 13(1)(c) of the Ordinance. Following by a notice under section 116 of the Ordinance for the concealment of the true particulars of total income, served upon the assessee. The assessee submitted its reply, which is reproduced as under:- "We had admitted in our two earlier letters, dated 13-10-1996 and 5-3-1996 that the machinery of worth Rs.38,000 could not be accounted for in the books of accounts. This was a negligence on the part of the accountant. There was no intention to conceal the true particulars of the income/assets as the assessee had himself provided the purchase vouchers in respect of the said machinery. Had there any intention to conceal the particulars, the company could not have filed the purchase vouchers of the machinery." 2. The Assessing Officer, finding it to be a case of concealment, by providing inaccurate particulars, imposed upon the assessee a penalty at the rate of 200%, which order was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before the CIT (Appeal),and thereafter, second appeal was brought before the ITAT which after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has reduced the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs.500, finding it to be in excess and not matching to the default of the assessee. Hence this appeal under section 136 of…
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