Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 245 2013 SLD 245
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No. 328/LB/2013 Tax year 2007, hearing DATE 08.03.2013. DATE of order 08.04.2013
MR., JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Waseem Ch., Advocate.
Respondent by Mrs. Sadia Sadaf, D.R

M/s. Rana Akram and Co., 8-K, Raiwind Road, Lahore. (NTN 1366949)

VS

CIR, ZonEX, RTO-II, Lahore.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 116,122(5),122(9),111,

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001),.. Sections 122(5), 122(9), 111, 116,.. Assessment,.. Amendment,.. Un-explained income,.. Show-cause Notice,.. Validity,.. DCIR mentioned that he had issued a notice under Section 122(9)(5) of the Ordinance vide order dated 13/12/2010 and had passed the order on 04/04/2011 but had not mentioned the date of compliance of the order,.. Likewise, in his order he had no where mentioned that he had adopted the procedure provided under the law for the service of notice and had amended the deemed assessment with the observation that taxpayer was a habitual non-compliant,.. Likewise, while perusal of the impugned order of the learned CIR(A) it was found that despite he had mentioned the 4 dates of issuance of notices but had not mentioned that he had adopted the legal procedure regarding the service of notice,.. Tribunal was of the view that the order had been passed without affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant/tax-payer, therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIR(A) was vacated and the amended order passed by the DCIR was set aside for fresh consideration with the observation to pass fresh order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant,.. The appeal was allowed,.. JUDGMENT Through this appeal the appellant has objected against the impugned order of the learned CIR(A) dated 30.6.2012 on the following grounds:- "2. That assessment u/s 122(5)(1)/111 of the Income Tax Ordinance was completed without service of statutory notices on the appellant, hence, not maintainable in the eyes of law. However, order of the learned CIR(A) is silent on this issue. 3. That assessment completed u/s 122(5)(1)/111 of the Ordinance was not a best judgment order, it is capricious, vindictive and dishonest, hence the learned CIR(A) was not justified to upheld the impugned order. 4. That before completion of assessment u/s 122(5)(1)/111 of the Ordinance no notice in terms of section 122(9)/111 was served upon the appellant, hence order passed was unlawful and illegal and the learned CIR(A) has grossly erred to uphold the assessment order. 5. That the DCIR passed order u/s 122(5)(1)/111 on…
🔒
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