| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2337 2010 SLD 2337 (2010) 102 TAX 267 2010 PTD 2559 2011 PTR 46 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No. 986/IB of 2009, decision dated: 21st June, 2010
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Shahid Iqbal, LA and Miss Nazia Zaib, D.R. for Appellants. Azhar Hameed, ACA for
Respondent.
I.T.A. No. 986/IB of 2009, decision dated: 21st June, 2010
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Shahid Iqbal, LA and Miss Nazia Zaib, D.R. for Appellants. Azhar Hameed, ACA for
Respondent.
Law:
Section: 161,205,SecondSched,(12),(25),SixthSched
[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]....Sections 161 & 205, Second Sched: Part-I, Cls. (8), (12) & (25) & Sixth Sched., Part-II, R.5---Rules of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Employees Pension Fund, Rr.9 & 15---Failure to pay tax collected or deducted---Assessee in default---Voluntary Separation Scheme---Payments to employees retired under Voluntary Separation Scheme/pension---Assessee was treated as taxpayer in default due to non-deduction of tax on the pension/payments made to employees retired under Voluntary Separation Scheme---Claim of exemption---Department contended that taxpayer had rightly been treated as taxpayer in default for non-deduction of income tax on the payments made on account of commutation of pension as payments of commutation/pension did not qualify the provision of exemption under Cl. (12) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and exemption under CI. (25) of the Part-I of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had no applicability---Validity---Stand of taxpayer to claim exemption was Cl. (25) of Part-I of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was an afterthought because taxpayer itself applied to Federal Board of Revenue for exemption under Cl. (12) of the Part-I of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which was not granted---Order of refusing exemption could not be assailed before the Appellate Tribunal rather it might have been challenged by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court---Department, in an other case, had itself admitted that separate approval under Cl. (12) of the Part-I of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not a requisite and earlier approved fund will suffice to serve the purpose---Majority out of thousands people employees were still receiving remaining pension periodically and withholding agent had option to deduct tax while making remaining payments---Huge number of employees whose pension payments were to fall under exemption shall suffer either due to the fault of Company/ taxpayer---Exemption had been provided through legislation but subject to approval which was just a procedural aspect for analyzing…