Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 643 2018 SLD 643 2018 PTD 612
Peshawar High Court
Tax Reference No. 33-P of 2014, decision & hearing Date : 22-05-2017.
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, JUSTICE, IJAZ ANWAR, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shoaib Jally for Petitioner. Ghulam Haroon for
Respondent.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUERTO

VS

DR. GHULAM RASOOL

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 111(1)(b),122(1),128(4),128(5),133(1)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 122(1), 128(5) & 133(1)---Reference---Additional documents---Taxation officer initiated proceedings against taxpayer, after finalization of assessment, and amended the assessment under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--- Appellate Authority set aside additional tax by requisitioning wealth statement and said order was maintained by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue---Validity---Appellate authority had given necessary reasons for admitting additional documents on grounds that assessing officer had given notices to taxpayer under S. 122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but their services on taxpayer could not be verified--- Additional documents were annexed with appeal and appellant had sufficient notices of the same---Appellate authority had taken note of S. 128(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which was not violated by appellate authority--- High Court declined to interfere in the matter--- Reference was dismissed in circumstances. C.I.R. v. Khalid Umar Khan Tax Reference No. 40 of 2014 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: IJAZ ANWAR, JUSTICE:---.--- Through this judgment, we intends to answer the tax reference, wherein the following questions of law have been formulated by the appellant(s):-- (a) "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ATIR was justified to delete the addition made under section 111(1) (b) as unexplained investment by ignoring the facts that the taxpayer failed to produce any documentary evidence to the taxpayer officer at the time of assessment proceedings to explain the source of investment inspite of repeated statutory notices issued to him? " (b) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ATIR was justified to rule that the learned CIR (Appeals) has not violated Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by admitting evidence in appeal which was not produced in the original proceedings despite there being no sufficient cause which prevented the taxpayer from producing the same in the original proceedings?" 2. The relevant facts as narrated by the appellant in the Tax Reference and are necessary for the disposal of this case, that the…
🔒
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