Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 13(11),120(1),122(1),122(2),122(5)

ORDER This appeal is directed against orders No. 832 /2015 dated 06.07.2015 passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeals CIR (A) Islamabad. As per facts the appellant is an individual, derives salary income from CDA Islamabad. The appellant filed income tax return for Tax year 2007 on 30.09.2007. Proceedings in this case were initiated on the receipt of information from CDA Islamabad that taxpayer had been allotted plot no 820, 1-8/4 Islamabad on 04.01.2007 which had been given to the taxpayer as perquisite as a beneficiary employee of organization. The taxpayer has contended that the above plot was not purchased but was allotted by the CDA as one time service benefit. This contention of the taxpayer was not accepted and assessment amended u/s 122(1), making additions of RS. 10,000,000 on account of market value and purchase price of the Plot. The addition was made in terms of section 13(11) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer filed appeals against these orders which were rejected by CIR (A) vide his above mentioned order for the reason that the same were time-barred. The Taxpayer has filed second appeals before this forum on the grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal. 2. Learned AR contented that impugned order u/s 122(5) statedly passed on 29.06.2013 was not received by the taxpayer. It was allegedly dispatched thorough UMS. On verification from post office it was found that the said UMS remain un served. In this manner the service was totally illegal. He contended that for recovery of demand, the bank accounts of the appellant were attached by the department. On this event it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the above mentioned order had been passed against it. Thereafter applications were filed, without any loss of time for issuance of certified copies. On receipt of certified copies the appeal was filed within 30 days. In this manner the appeals of the taxpayer were within time. Learned AR further stated that CIR (A) did not give judicious consideration to the issue relating to services of notices. He stated that the honorable ATIR in its judgment reported as 2009 PTD 2219 held that the notices should be issued and served in a…

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