| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1087 2016 SLD 1087 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
NEW ITA No. 208/LB/2012 (Tax year 2005), ITA No. 209/LB/2012 (Tax year 2006), Date of hearing 03.05 2016, Date of order 02.06,2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
NEW ITA No. 208/LB/2012 (Tax year 2005), ITA No. 209/LB/2012 (Tax year 2006), Date of hearing 03.05 2016, Date of order 02.06,2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
M/s. Varioline Kitchen (Pvt.) Ltd., 10-C, GulberGII, Lahore. NTN.0667563... --Appellant
VS
The CIR (APPEAL courts-II), R.T.O, Lahore....--Respondent
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 120(1),221
ORDER Both these appeals have been filed by the taxpayer against the consolidated impugned order dated 17.01.2012, recorded by the learned CIR(Appeals-II), Lahore, wherein remanding the exparte assessments u/s 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 have been challenged. 2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the taxpayer, a private limited company, deriving income from manufacturing and sale of kitchens and accessories filed income tax returns declaring loss/income of (Rs.2,035,970/-) and Rs.2,095,313/- for both the years under appeal, respectively, which were treated to be assessment order in terms of section 120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 The taxation officer examined the impugned orders for both the years under appeal and found certain discrepancies which were confronted to the taxpayer by issuance of notice u/s 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but uncomplied with. The taxation officer therefore, passed exparte assessment order u/s 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. In appeal, the learned CIR(Appeals) remanded the matter to the taxation officer for further probe. This has brought the taxpayer in further appeals before this forum. 3. The learned AR has vehemently argued that the learned CIR(Appeals) was not justified to remand the case to the taxation officer and the learned CIR(Appeals) should have cancelled the assessment as the proceedings u/s 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 have wrongly been initiated. He further submitted taxes at Rs.811,305/- and Rs. 1,024,042/-, respectively, for both the years under appeal has wrongly been charged u/s 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and additional taxes amounting to Rs 487,316/- and Rs.612,741/-, respectively for the years under appeal u/s 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has also wrongly been charged which is liable to be deleted. He therefore, prays for vacation of the same by restoration of the original assessment u/s 120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the authorities below simply by reiterating the basis evolved in the impugned order. No new set of arguments has been putforth which may be worth quotation here.…
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