| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1670 2017 SLD 1670 (2017) 116 TAX 114 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi
M.A (Stay) No. 109/KB to 113/KB of 2015, I.T.A. No. 637/KBto 641/KB of 2015 (Tax Years: 2007, 2008, 2009. 2010 & 2011)decided on 27.05.2015, Date of hearing: 26.05.2015
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SIKANDAR ASLAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Syed Shabbar H. Zaidi, FCA and Asra Rauf FCA, for Applicants.Abdul Oadeer Abbasi DR, for
Respondent.
M.A (Stay) No. 109/KB to 113/KB of 2015, I.T.A. No. 637/KBto 641/KB of 2015 (Tax Years: 2007, 2008, 2009. 2010 & 2011)decided on 27.05.2015, Date of hearing: 26.05.2015
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SIKANDAR ASLAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Syed Shabbar H. Zaidi, FCA and Asra Rauf FCA, for Applicants.Abdul Oadeer Abbasi DR, for
Respondent.
M/S. HABIB BANK LIMITEDVSTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-I, LTU, KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 124(1),127,131(5),221
INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XLIX OE 2001) Sections: 124(1), 127, & 221 - Rectification of mistakes Recovery of tax demand. Request for stay refused by CIR(A) - Filing of Miscellaneous Application for stay of demand before Appellate Tribunal by appellant. ARGUMENTS Averments made by applicant are that subject appeal was filed u/s 127 against combined order of CIR(A) rejecting application for stay while main appeal is still pending disposal before CIR(A) - It was further stated that CTR(A) has disposed of applicant's application for stay of demand raised in order framed u/s 221/124(1) of Ordinance passed by DC'IR, but stay of demand has been summarily disposed of with remarks that appellant did not make out his case for stay against demand. ARs stated impugned order was framed in haste on ex-parte basis without allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard and the manner in which proceedings have been conducted suggest "malafide intention" to reduce existing refunds of appellant - On the contrary, DR invited attention towards 1st proviso to sub-section (5) of section 131 and argued that case of applicant/appellant is fully covered by said proviso. He further contended that balance of convenience is not in favour of taxpayer and even otherwise CIR(A) had justifiably rejected stay application as taxpayer has failed to make out his case for stay against demand - Validity - DECISION (A.) Stay by Appellate Tribunal - The above provisions of law clearly shows/describes that the stay by CIR(A),would be only for 30 days. The Tribunal has wider power to grant the stay for 180 days. If the stay is refused by the CIR(A) and tax levied is not yet upheld by the CIR(A), and the appeal is pending adjudication before him and on refusal of the same the Tribunal cannot exercise its powers u/s 131(5) read with proviso that would result in an influx of stay applications before this Tribunal as each taxpayer may get the stay rejected by the CIR(A) and may file appeal and stay application against the said refusal order before this Tribunal and enjoy 180 days stay what to speak of 30 days in-built limitation on CIT(A). If the learned CIR(A) grants the stay for statutory period of…