Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 356 2017 SLD 356
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
ITA No. 1029/IB/2016 (Tax Year 2014), Date of Hearing: 10.01.2017 Date of Order: 10.01.2017
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, NADEEM DAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Applicant By: Mr. Zahid Shafiq, Advocate.
Respondent By: Mst. Shabana Mumtaz, DR.

M/S Mohsin Traders, Rawalpindi ..... --Applicant

VS

CIR, RTO, Rawalpindi ...... --Respondent

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 153,153(7),205,236,236H

THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:---.--- This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order No. if76/20]6 dated 04.01.2016 passed by CIR(A-I), Islamabad. The taxpayer is in 2nd appeal on the following grounds:- 1. That the orders passed by the CIR are bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That CIR erred while deciding the appeal and also was not justified to reject the appeal on wrong presumption because all the supporting documents were provided during hearing so the order passed is not maintainable. 3. That the order of CIR are illegal void ab-intio and without jurisdiction as the DCIR created default u/s 236 whereas CIR confirm the same u/s 153.. 4. That the order passed is illegal because proper reply of show cause notice was submitted which was not considered and order was passed without any cogent reason.. 5. That the appellant is an importer, sold goods to retail consumers. End consumer and the same was also declared in the monthly sales tax return during the year but the DCIR treated the term "retail consumer" as "retailer" which is highly unjustified as well as against the spirit of law. 6. That there was no definite information held with the DCIR while passing the order hence the order passed is illegal. 7. That the show cause notices issued and the order passed by the officer itself negates the definite information. 8. That under the law, facts and circumstances of the case the appellant was not liable to deduct tax u/s 236H from retail consumers so the order passed is not maintainable. 9. That the appellant imported certain goods which are not covered u/s 236G, 236 H and the same fact was also communicated in the reply filed against show cause notice but the same fact was not considered by the officer. 10. That proper reply of 1st show cause notice was submitted on 28.4.2015 which was intentionally not considered by the officer. 11. That proper reply of final show cause notice was also submitted on 2.2.2015 which was also not considered by the assessing officer and imposed tax on guess work, assumptions and estimation. 12. That officer without considering the fact…
🔒
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