Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 43 2016 SLD 43 (2016) 114 TAX 43
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi
M.A (Stay) No. 97/KB/2014 (Tax Year 2008), ITA No. 184/KB/2014 (Tax Year 2008) decided on 07.03.2014, Date of hearing: 07.03.2014
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Asra Rauf, FCA., for the Appellant. Ghulam Murtaza, DR., for the
Respondent.

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 128(1A)

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XUX OF 2001) Section: 128(1A) - Procedure in appeal - Refusal to extend stay order beyond 30 days by CIR(A) - Appeal yet under adjudication - Filing of miscellaneous application for stay of demand before tribunal - DR contended that balance of convenience is not in favour of Taxpayer and even otherwise CIR(A) had already granted stay for 30 days and statutory time period of 30 days as provided u/s 128(1A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has elapsed and the taxpayer is not entitled for any further extension till the pendency of appeal before CIR(A) - Validity - However, we may observe that on various occasions the taxpayer attended the CIR(A) office and argued the case at length for quick disposal but the case was constantly adjourned by him on the pretext that comments from the department were awaited. Therefore, it is not the taxpayer's fault, for getting the time of stay exhausted. The taxpayer company has not committed any sin or crime. There is no fault or default on the part of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is being penalized and punished for its obedience to law of the land. The taxpayer ought to file M.A. Stay Application once again before the CIR(A) immediately on receipt of this order if for any reason or for any embargo or inbuilt limitation the CIR(A) refuse to grant further stay. While allowing or refusing stay CIR(A) should cite example of fault or default of taxpayer and consider that it is common knowledge, that a statute normally does not provide for each and every conceivable eventuality and in respect of some unforeseen events arising in a case for which it has made no provision, the courts would be deemed to have inherent jurisdiction in the interest of orderly dispensation of justice. In the event of refusal by the CIR(A), the taxpayer will be at liberty to avail the constitutional remedy by filing Constitutional Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh or may knock the door of any appropriate court/forum. Lastly, we direct the CIR(A) to pass speaking, judicial and judicious decision on main appeal within 6 (six) working days from receipt of this order and the same to be disposed of and served on Assessing…
🔒
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