Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 123 2012 SLD 123 (2012) 106 TAX 259 2012 PTD 1889
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
M.A. (R) 112/IB of 2011, decision dated: 28-05-2012
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hafiz Muhammad Idrees ASC for Applicant. Ziaullah Khan, D.R. for
Respondent

C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., RAWALPINDI

VS

Messrs TARIQ MEHMOOD

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 221,121,111(1)(b)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S.221---Rectification of mistake---Scope---During the rectification proceedings no new facts .could be entertained---Any issue which need verification, investigation or perusal of facts from record other than the record of Appellate Tribunal, like the examination of previous year record of department, verification of letters, dispatch/diary register etc. could not become subject matter for rectification. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 221, 121 & 111(1)(b)---Rectification of mistake---Second miscellaneous application---Finding of facts---Department contended that Appellate Tribunal was final pedestal in determination of fact finding; and what was true and actually on ground that must be determined as fact---Taxpayer contended that it was for the department to produce record in support of its version; that failure to produce record at the time of decision of appeal and first rectification application by the department had resulted into a finding which may be wrong but correct as per record available at that time, had attained finality; that second rectification application had not to change the fate of appeal; which it could only by one way that the department if preferred to go to High Court and another opportunity would have been granted for the production of evidence/record; that decision when not challenged attained the finality and equally enforceable; and that rectification could only be sought for error floating on the surface of record or in the order---Validity---At the relevant time of decision by the Appellate Tribunal, neither office note was produced by the department nor there was any mistake in the order as per evidence produced at that time---Appellate Tribunal or court had to afford equal opportunity to either of the parties to prove their version, if one of the party failed at his turn, it could not he afforded opportunity time and again through miscellaneous application for rectification---Proper remedy was to assail the order before High Court and if opportunity was granted to produce evidence which could not be produced due to any reason, then case was to be reopened in…
🔒
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