Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 9

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 111(1)(b),120(1),122(5),177

(a) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----S.9(2)(b)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Disregard of evidence and explanation---Assessment of income---Allegation against the Department by the complainant was not the quantum of income assessed per se, but the Department had arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner disregarded the complainant's documentary evidence and explanation regarding his sources of investment---Procedural injustice being well within jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman and did not fall within the purview of S.9(2)(b) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----Ss. 111(1)(b), 120(1) & 122(5)---Unexplained income or assets---Source of investment was rejected by the Department on the basis that the actual withdrawal of Pak Rupees from the Rupee account was not established; that the receipt of sale proceeds, in instalments, from sale of 57 kanals plot in village, was not proved; that sale proceeds were received in their entirety when the third and final Iqrar Nama was executed and that amount received in its entirety could not have been used to finance the purchases of properties in the prior period---Validity---Department had no clear idea of what it intended to do during Audit---Audit proceedings were started on the premise that the complainant was a dealer in real estate in Pakistan and the differential between purchase price and sale price in the case of properties sold out by him was liable to be taxed as the complainant's business income---Department rejected all three Iqrar Namas filed by the complainant to substantiate sale of his property at village---In assessments made earlier in the case of buyers of these properties, the Department had raised no objection with regard to the authenticity of any of the three Iqrar Namas submitted, which was evidently arbitrary---Any contrary view taken in complainant's case, when the property, the buyers of the property and the seller were the same, was indeed discriminatory---Department could not approbate and reprobate in the same…

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