Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 310 2016 SLD 310 2016 PTD 823
Peshawar High Court
Tax Reference No. 40-P of 2014, decided on 9th September, 2015, Date of hearing: 9th September, 2015.
YAHYA AFRIDI AND ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JJ
Mian Naveed Gul Kakakhel for Petitioners. Muhammad Haroon for
Respondents.

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), PESHAWAR

VS

KHALID UMar court KHAN

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 24A

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 120(1),128(4),128(5),133(1)

(a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)-- --S. 24-A--Speaking order--Scope--Tribunal and quasi-judicial authorities are under legal obligation to give plausible reason, absence whereof can render the order liable to judicial chastisement--Courts and quasi-judicial authorities should record reason for their conclusion to enable aggrieved party /appellant or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction properly and in accordance with law--Reasoning alone can enable a higher or appellate Court to appreciate controversy in issue in its correct and true perspective and to hold whether conclusion recorded by Court, whose order is assailed, is sustainable in law and whether subordinate Court has adopted a correct legal approach--To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, it is essential that Court should record detailed reasons for their conclusion and decide the matter through a speaking order--Stating a reason by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities is a well-accepted norm and its compliance is stated to be mandatory. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-- --Ss. 120(1), 128(4)(5) & 133(1)--Reference--Additional evidence, production of--Principle--Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) allowed the assessee to produce additional evidence and then set aside the assessment order--Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue maintained the order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)--Validity-- Admission of additional evidence in such a manner at appellate stage was against the mandate of S. 128(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as the same was not referred to any right of parties to produce evidence but was dependent solely on the satisfaction of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) and it was for him to decide that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such material or evidence before the Commissioner--Mere fact that evidence sought to be produced was vital and important for decision of case would not provide a sufficient cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage specially when the evidence was available to taxpayer at the ijiitial stage and was not produced by him--Provisions of S. 128(4) invested Commissioner…
🔒
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