| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1022 2017 SLD 1022 2017 PTD 1126 (2017) 117 TAX 74 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
M.A. (Stay) No. 19/KB and S.T.A. No. 28/KB of 2014, decided on 14th April, 2014. Date of hearing: 14th April, 2014.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SIKANDAR ASLAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Arshad Mehmood, FCA for Appellant. Chaudhry Anwar, DR. for
Respondent.
M.A. (Stay) No. 19/KB and S.T.A. No. 28/KB of 2014, decided on 14th April, 2014. Date of hearing: 14th April, 2014.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SIKANDAR ASLAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Arshad Mehmood, FCA for Appellant. Chaudhry Anwar, DR. for
Respondent.
MESSRS SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI
VS
C.I.R., Zone-III, LTU, KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 131(5)
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 131(5)-Grant of stay of recovery of tax demand by Appellate Tribunal-Principles-Stay of recovery demand by the Tribunal, could be granted, if it was proved that taxpayer was facing hardships or financial constrains-In the present case, it was not proved by the taxpayer, that the department had initiated any coercive measures for recovery of the demand-Stay could not be granted on the basis of general rule, but applicant had to prove its case-Stay could be granted if party seeking stay had a prima facie case; that in case of refusal of stay party could suffer irreparable loss and the balance of convenience or inconvenience, if the stay was not allowed-Section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unequivocally provided that the Tribunal could stay the recovery proceedings, if the recovery proceedings caused undue hardship to the taxpayer-Applicant/taxpayer had failed to make out a case for grant of stay as no hardship was seen to have been caused to the taxpayer-Applicant/taxpayer had filed vexatious and frivolous applications and by doing so, he had not only wasted the time of the court, but also dragged unnecessarily the revenue-Taxpayer having not shown that any coercive measures were being initiated by the department, neither any notice of hardship was issued, nor any recovery proceedings were seen to have been initiated by the department against the taxpayer, application for grant of stay was rejected by the Tribunal in circumstances. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 131-Appeal-Powers of Appellate Tribunal-Scope-Power to grant stay, pending appeal before Tribunal-Powers of Appellate Tribunal, were of widest amplitude in dealing with appeals before it- Tribunal had the power of granting stay during the pendency of the appeal before it-Stay would be granted for a limited and specified period-No automatic stay-Mere filing of and pendency of appeal, would not operate as suspension or stay-No provision in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 existed that an assessment would become provisional or non-existent with the filing of an appeal against it- Mere fact of pendency of an appeal would not operate as stay…
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