Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 249 2016 SLD 249
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
ITA No. 987/IB/2015 (Tax Year 2013), Date of Hearing & Order: 10.02.2016
NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant by: Mirza Saqib, Advocate
Respondent by: Mr. Masood Akhtar, DR

M/s. Makhadwai CNG Filling Station, Pindigheb..--Appellant

VS

The CIR, RTO, Rawalpindi--Respondent

Law:

Section:

ORDER Nazir Ahmad. (Judicial Member): The titled further appeal pertaining to tax year 2013 filed at the instance of the taxpayer have been directed against the appellate order dated 13.0-1.201 3 recorded by CIR(Appeals-III), Rawalpindi. 2. The facts in brief leading to the instant appeals are that the taxpayer, an AOP, deriving income from running a CNG station, filed return for the year under consideration claiming refund of Rs. 136,617/-, which was rejected by the taxation officer u/s 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance'). Feeling aggrieved, the taxpayer preferred appeal before CIR(Appeals-III), Rawalpindi, which was also rejected vide appellate order dated 20.03.20 13 by placing reliance on a reported judgment of Honourable Peshawar High Court cited as 2011 PTD 104 while deciding the issue regarding claim of refund as well as reported judgment of Honourable Islamabad High Court cited 2012 PTD 396 while deciding the issue of limitation provided for deciding an appeal by an appellate authority. Still discontented with the treatment meted out by the first appellate authority, the taxpayer has come up in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the taxpayer has termed the action of both authorities below to be arbitrary by arguing that the refund claimed by the taxpayer in respect of electricity bill tax deduction was adjustable u/s 235 of the Ordinance as well as in the light of reported judgment of Honourable Lahore High Court cited as 103 Tax 96 = 2011 PTD 1 and 2009 PTD 1073 against which denial by both authorities below does not find favour under the law. On the strength of these submission, he seeks vacation of the orders passed by both authorities below. 4. On the other hand, learned DR appearing on behalf of the department has fully supported the orders passed by both authorities below simply by reiterating the basis evolved therein. 5. Arguments heard and record perused. 6. The sole issue involved in the case in hand for determination is that whether the deduction of tax on electricity bills by the electric supply company is refundable to the CNG stations, who fall under…
🔒
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