Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2059 2010 SLD 2059 (2011) 103 TAX 1 2010 PTD 2302
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No. 708/IB of 2010, decision dated: 13-08-2010
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Shahid Iqbal, Advocate/L.A. for Appellant. S.A. Kazmi, ITP for
Respondent.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122,127,174(3),177,131

[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)].....Sections 122, 127, 174(3), 177 & 131---Amendment of the assessment by Taxation Officer---Cancellation of order of amendment---Taxation Officer amended assessment under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Appeal filed by assessee against order of Taxation officer having been accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) department had filed appeal before Appellate Tribunal---Amendment of assessment was time barred in terms of S.174(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, because the accounts and documents required to be maintained under said section would be maintained for five years after the end of tax year to which they related---Limitation in circumstances was expired on 31-12-2008, while assessment order was passed on 30-9-2009---Section 122(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had provided that assessment order, would only be amended under subsection (1), within five years after the Commissioner had issued or was treated as having been issued the assessment order on the taxpayer---Contention that the taxpayer was using delaying tactics, was without any force, because Taxation Officer himself was supposed to be vigilant about the limitation---No edge could be given to the department which had made the amended assessment which was beyond the clock---Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. 2002 PTD 1195; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1354 and 2002 PTD 1195 ref. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 5-5-2010 passed by CIR(A-I) Islamabad for the tax year, 2003 on the following grounds: (a) That the learned CIR(A) was not justified to cancel the assessment on the ground of being barred by time, as the selection under section 177 was sub judice before the Lahore High Court and "limitation in this case did not apply. The department had legitimate time to amend order under section 122(1) up to 26-11-2009 in the instant case. (b) It is settled law that whenever a matter is sub judice before a higher forum the lower authority cannot finalize the issue Reliance in this regard can be placed on a judgment of the honourable High Court in a case reported as (2002) PTD 1195 (H.C. Lah.) 2. Brief…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register