Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 104 2016 SLD 104
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
ITA No. 308/IB/2015 (Tax Year-2009), DATE of hearing & order: 22.12.2015
JAVID IQBAL, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD MAJID QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Imran Malik, ACMA
Respondent by: Mr. Shaukat Hayat, D.R.

Liaqat Ali Chaudhry, Islamabad.

VS

The CIR, R.T.O, Islamabad.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 111,111(b),111(1)(b),111(4)(a),122,122(1 ),122(5),122(8),122(9)

ORDER The above titled appeal has been filed by the Appellant against an Appellate Order No. 228/2015 dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-ll), Islamabad. The Appellant has contested the appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds:- 1. That, the impugned orders passed by Learned OIR & Learned Commissioner IR (Appeals-ll) are against the facts & passed without given due consideration to the submissions through grounds of appeal & during the hearing proceedings. DEFINITE INFORMATION 2. That, the impugned order passed by the Learned OIR is otherwise not tenable in the eyes of the Law, as the proceedings u/s 122 can only be initiated on some "Definite Information" as per subsection (5) of section 122 read with subsection (8) of section 122 of the Ordinance. The same matter has been discussed & confirmed in many judgments by the apex Honorable forums. Whereas in the instant case, the show cause notices were issued from time to time without any "Definite Information". The notices were issued just for fishing the information & even the stance/observation was changed from the previous one. FOREIGN REMITTANCES OF RS. 14,249.709/- 3. That, as per section 111(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the amount can only be taxed as unexplained income, if the person offers no explanation about the investment. On the other hand, in the instant case investment has been properly declared & also explained the nature of the investment with the documentary evidences. Hence, there is nothing unexplained which can be taxed u/s 111 of the ITO, 2001. 4. That, the amounts had been remitted from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) for the purpose of purchase of property. The bank statement in which the amount had been remitted &the remittance certificates from Faysal Bank Limited which clearly indicating that the amounts had been remitted for the purpose of purchase of property. INVESTMENT, LOAN/ADVANCES & PRIZE BONDS OF RS. 93.662.030/- 5. That, it is unjust to remand back the case to the assessing officer for re-examine of the issue in the presence of the all the documentary evidences & explanation provided…
🔒
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