Law: Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971

Section: 4(1),6,11,11-B(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XLIX OF 2001)---Sections: 111(1), 111(1)(b), 111(4), 111(4)(a), 122(1) , 214C - Amendment of assessments - Unexplained income or assets - Selection for audit by the Board - An individual, deriving income from business and salary - Selection for audit - Increase in wealth, not commensurate with declared sources - Assessment of income of appellant by DCIR at a higher pedestal - CIR(A) upheld DCIR’s rejection of appellant’s explanation regarding foreign remittance and observed that appellant had not fulfilled the condition provided u/s 111(4)(a) that remittance must come from outside Pakistan and encashed into Pakistan Rupees by a scheduled Bank - Appeal before Tribunal - FACTS Appellant (taxpayer) is an individual deriving income from business and salary. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant’s case was selected for audit which was taken up and as a result of proceedings the DCIR assessed the Appellant’s income at Rs. 141,405,294 The said order was contested by the Appellant before the learned CIR(A) on various grounds. The learned CIR(A), while modifying the unexplainable income from Rs. 141,406,830 to Rs. 105,974,856 by accepting the Appellant’s revised closing balance as the basis for calculating accretion of wealth, upheld the DCIR’s rejection of the Appellant’s explanation regarding foreign remittances. The appellant is now before this Tribunal against the impugned order. ARGUMENTS It is contended by the learned AR that the DCIR was unjustified in adding foreign remittances amounting to Rs. 105,974,856 as the same were received through proper banking channel in the Appellant’s USD bank account and the source of the same has been explained through detailed relevant record, including bank statements, u/s 111(1)(b). Therefore, the rejection of explanation provided by the Appellant on the touchstones of section 111(4) is erroneous since the Appellant never relied or sought to avail the exemption provided u/s 111(4). Thus, the said transaction does not fall foul of section 111(1). In support of his contentions, the learned AR has placed reliance on the cases cited as 2013 SLD 248 and 2015 PTD (Trib.) 626. The learned DR on the…

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