Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122C,127

JUDGMENT YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE.- Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of four Tax References, as common questions of law are involved therein. The particulars of which are as under; - 1. Tax Ref. No. 5 of 2013 (Commissioner of Inland Revenue Zone-III, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs. Tariq Mehmood C/O Khan Enterprises, Kohat). 2. Tax Ref. No. 6 of 2013 (Commissioner of Inland Revenue Zone-III, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs. Tariq Mehmood C/O Khan Enterprises, Kohat). 3. Tax Ref. No. 7 of 2013 (Commissioner of Inland Revenue Zone-III, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs. Tariq Mehmood C/O Khan Enterprises, Kohat). 4. Tax Ref. No. 8 of 2013 (Commissioner of Inland Revenue Zone-III, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs. Tariq Mehmood C/O Khan Enterprises, Kohat). 2. In all these References, the petitioner has formulated the following common questions of law: I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ATIR was justified in holding that a person dissatisfied with the order passed under Section 122(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can file appeal before the CIR (Appeals) whereas section 127 specifically excludes the provisional order passed u/s 122(c) from purview of appeal under section 127? II. Whether the ATIR was justified to confirm the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) without examining the above legal aspect of the case? III Whether the ATIR was justified to reject the appeal of the department when the order u/s 122(c) is not appealable as provided in Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revenue restricted his arguments to the question of law No. "III'' which reads as under:- "Whether the ATIR was justified to reject the appeal of the department when the order u/s 122(c) is not appealable as provided in Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001"?. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Revenue vehemently argued that despite this ground of appeal taken by the Revenue before the worthy Tribunal, the same was not addressed in the impugned decision. Thus, the Revenue was prejudiced in their claim before the worthy Tribunal. This Court is not in accord with the…

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