Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 682 2017 SLD 682 2017 PTD 547 (2017) 116 TAX 53
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (Rect) No. 138/KB of 2016 in S.T.A. No. 50/KB of 2014, decided on 5th September, 2016, Date of hearing: 18th August, 2016.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Zafar Rafiq, D.R. for Applicant. Muhammad Faheem Bhayo for
Respondent.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE

VS

MESSRS DEW AN SUGAR MILLS LTD.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 53(2),221

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 90,99

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 221-Rectification of order of Tribunal-Department had sought rectification in the order of Appellate Tribunal which was fairly elaborate and speaking reasoned order taking into account the relevant provisions of law and facts of the case and no grievance was left undecided-Department had already filed Reference application before the High Court against the said order of the Tribunal-When the issue was pending adjudication before the High Court on the same subject, no rectification application was required to be moved by either party before the Tribunal-Rectification application filed by the department was misconceived and not maintainable-No apparent and patent mistake was noticed on the surface of the order of the Tribunal, relating to the finding on the issue-Department had filed application for rectification order, with the intention of re-arguing the matter, which had been concluded by the Tribunal-Approach of the department was clearly against the principles of res judicata- Department had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and would not deserve any relief-Rectification application was dismissed being beyond the scope of rectification, meritless, and not tenable in law. National Foods Laboratories's case 1992 SCMR 687 = 1992 PTD 570 and CIR v. ENI Pakistan Ltd. 2013 PTD 508 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 221-Powers of Tribunal to rectify its order-Scope, application and object of S.221, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Tribunal had no power to correct error of and review of its own order, because the "error of " was not synonymous of "mistake in "-For exercising jurisdiction under S.221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, it was not mandatory condition that such mistake should be wide, apparent, manifest and patent and something which involved serious circumstances of dispute or question of fact or law to be established by a long drawn process and reasoning on the point to be rectified-Matter and glaring mistake or evident error which apparently floated on surface of the order of Tribunal and did not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish; would be an…
🔒
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