Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 110 2016 SLD 110
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad
ITA No. 410/IB/14 (Tax year 2011), ITA No. 411/IB/14 (Tax year 2012), DATE of hearing: 17.11.2015, DATE of order: 10.02.2016
JAVID IQBAL, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Syed Tauqeer Bukhari Advocate & Syed Tanseer Bukhari Advocate
Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Waqas Hanif, DR.

Mrs. Bina Riaz Malik, Islamabad.--Appellant

VS

The CIR, RTO, Islamabad.--Respondent

Law:

Section:

ORDER Through these two appeals the taxpayer has objected to the impugned order of the learned CIR (A) dated 07.04.2014 for the tax years 2011 and 2012 on the grounds which are reproduced as under:- "GROUND OF APPEAL 2011 1 That the order of the Respondent No. 2 up to the extent of merits/facts of the case is non-speaking order. The Respondent no 2 was required to pass speaking order after adjudicating the complete grounds of Appeals. 2. That Respondent no 1 was not empowered under Section 122(5A) to call for books of accounts, records, documents and evidence, and seeking help of such material through notice under Ss. 122(9)/122(5A) of the income tax ordinance, 2001 to establish erroneous and prejudice to the revenue, constituted fishing inquiries and was a clear indication to show that there was nothing erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the order of assessment sought to be amended. 3. That Respondent no 1 was not justified to add the salary amount in taxable income after establishing the fact that tax has already been withheld and deposited in the government exchequer. The charging of tax against said salary income tantamount to double taxation. The Appellant filed request for revision of Income Tax return for the tax period under Appeal and willing to declare the same. 4. That Respondent no 1 was not justified to alleged the interest amount of JS Bank in taxable income. It is an admitted fact that said income is computed by the Respondent no. 1 on the basis of withholding tax amount. The charging of tax on the basis of assumption/presumption of said interest income tantamount to double taxation which is not permissible under the law. Without prejudice and without conceding if it is assume that the said amount was received as interest income even than the said income falls under FTR regime. 5. That Respondent no 1 was not justified to add back the amount of profit on debt and property income, which is FTR income and income tax has been properly deducted and paid. The Income declared in Income Tax Return and wealth reconciliation statement is same and there is no any difference between both declarations. The Appellant declared Rs.…
🔒
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