| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 39 2011 SLD 39 (2012) 105 TAX 34 2011 PTD 1771 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos.170/IB and 183/IB of 2009, decision dated:15-01-2011 hearing DATE : 15-01-2011
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for
Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 183/IB of 2009) and Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Resp
I.T.As. Nos.170/IB and 183/IB of 2009, decision dated:15-01-2011 hearing DATE : 15-01-2011
MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for
Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 183/IB of 2009) and Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Resp
Messrs BAHRIA TOWN, RAWALPINDI and othersVs, TAXATION OFFICER (AUDIT III), ISLAMABAD and another
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 177,21(l),21(c),120,121,122,120(1A),122( 9),177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d),21(l),Cl.39
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S.177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d)---Audit---Word "also" ---Connotation---Rule of literal construction is that an interpretation which renders any part of provision as surplusage is not correct---Construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected---Provisions of subsections (2) and (4) of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were disjunctive and not conjunctive---Subsection (4) of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly empowered the Commissioner of Income Tax to issue notice on the basis of criteria spelt out in sub-clauses(a)(b)(c) and (d) of sub-section (4) of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Writ Petition No.11166 of 2009 rel. (b) Maxim---Audi alteram partem---Applicability---Strict observance of norms of natural justice in general and the principle of audi alteram partem is to be read in every statute. PLD 2008 SC 663; 2007 SCMR 330; 2005 SCMR 678; 2005 SCMR 1814 and PLD 2004 SC 441 rel. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---S.177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d)---Audit---Pre-selection notice---Exclusion of pre-selection notice is essential for effective and smooth workability---If a brief scenario of fact along with legal implication was presented before the court order passed will be having complete subjective assessment of each issue---Court never intends to deprive the assessee to refute the version of the department---Right of assessee was protected in subsection (6) of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as well as in S.122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Pre-selection notice was not necessary. 2008 PTD 1440; Muhammad Hussain v. C.I.T. 2005 PTD 152 and 2009 PTD 284 ref. Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Fatima Sharif Textile, Kasur and others 2009 SCMR 344 = 2009 PTD 37; Writ Petition No.11166 of 2009; Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1271; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel AIR 1984 SC 1416; Lewis v. Heffer and others (1978) 3 All ER 354; Wednesbry Corporation v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 1 All ER 186; Hardutt Mull Jute Mills v. State of Bihar AIR 1957 Patna 2l and 2009 PTD 284 rel. (d)…
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