| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 159 2018 SLD 159 2018 PTD 314 (2018) 118 TAX 204 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos. 2244/LB, 2243/LB, 2242/LB of 2016 and M.As. (cond.) Nos. 56/LB to 58/LB of 2017, decision Date : 31--10--2017, hearing Date : 17--10--2017
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER, MASOOD AKHIAR SHAKEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mian Ahmad Saeed, ITP for Appellant. Ms. Amina Kamal, DR (RTO) for
Respondent.
I.T.As. Nos. 2244/LB, 2243/LB, 2242/LB of 2016 and M.As. (cond.) Nos. 56/LB to 58/LB of 2017, decision Date : 31--10--2017, hearing Date : 17--10--2017
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER, MASOOD AKHIAR SHAKEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mian Ahmad Saeed, ITP for Appellant. Ms. Amina Kamal, DR (RTO) for
Respondent.
M/S. SAEED BROTHERSTEEL REROLLING MILLS, LAHORE
VS
THE C.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 111(1)(d)(i),122,122(3),122(5A)
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -Ss. 111(1)(d)(i) 122(5-A)-SRO No. 345(I)/2010, dated 24--5--2010- Amendment of assessment-Assessing Officer noticed certain discrepancies which warranted action and considered the deemed assessment erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of S. 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Assessing Officer, initiated the proceedings and issued show-- cause notice confronting the taxpayer with alleged discrepancies and sought its explanation in that regard-Reply tendered by the taxpayer, being not satisfactory for the Assessing Officer, deemed assessment was amended-Appellate authority below upheld the order of the Assessing Officer-Taxpayer had declared rate of sale of re--rolled items, which was even lesser than the rate of ingots/billets which was raw material of re--rolled items-Assessing Officer had concluded that the taxpayer had suppressed/concealed sales which attracted the provisions of S. 111(1)(d)(i) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and said amount was added to the total income of taxpayer-Held, that orders passed by the authorities below on the issues of suppressing of sales were not in accordance with law and the order was vacated-Action initiated by Assessing authority in exercise of its powers under S. 122(5--A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and confirmed by appellate authority were not maintainable in the eyes of law. 1984 PTD (Trib.) 143; S.H. Mahmood and Company v. CIT, Karachi 1960 PTD 1347; Laser Parix Deplix Clinic v. ATIR 2002 PTD 549; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sakhi Contractors and Engineers, Multan, 1987 PTD 210; 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1253; CIR, Legal Division, Hyderabad v. Messrs Shad Co. Carriage Contractor Head Office, Hyderabad), 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2380; Defence Housing Authority Islamabad v. CIR, LTU, Islamabad 2013 PTD (Trib.) 1749; Haji Meher Din v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 PTD 541; Kamalia Steel Furnace v. CIR, RTO, Lahore I.T.A. 858/LB/2015 and I.T.A. 859/LB/2015 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):------.------ This common order intends to dispose of the titled three further appeals along with the titled…
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