Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 571 2016 SLD 571
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
ITA No. 723/IB/2016 (Assessment Year 2013) & MA (Stay) No. 268/IB/2016 (Assessment Year 2013), DATE of Hearing & Order: 01.06.2016

Appellant by: Ch. Naeem ul Haq, Advocate
Respondent by: Mr. Rashid Javed Rana, DR

M/s. Manan, 84-Nazimuddin Road, E 8/4, Islamabad

VS

Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), RTO, Islamabad & others

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 121(1)(d),137(2),140,177(10),214c

ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order No.978/2015 dated 15.02.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II), Islamabad on the following grounds:- 1. "That the orders of learned ACIR, RTO, Islamabad as well as the order of learned CIR (Appeals) are bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the ex-parte order is illegal. It should be kept in mind that mere issuance of a notice is not sufficient unless it is validly served. 3. That when issuance of notice is a statutory requirement the subsequent proceedings taken on the basis of that notice without its valid service are without jurisdiction and ab-initio null and void. 4. That the order u/s 121(1)(d) is illegal void ab-initio. 5. That the learned OIR has erred and mis-directed herself under the facts/law and circumstances of the case by invoking section 121(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 6. That the learned Officer not invoke section 177(10) which is prerequisite for invoking section 121(1)(d), so the whole order is she illegal. One cannot pass an order in presence of order u/s 120 unless she invoke jurisdiction of 177(10) of the Ordinance. 7. That the case was fixed for 27.05.2015 and learned AR filed written reply but the learned Officer ignored the written reply and passed an order. 8. That the learned Officer was not justified to make addition of bank accounts amounting to Rs.407,446/- which is unjustified, which received from verifiable sources' or it's recirculation of money. 9. That the appellant beg to leave to add, amend or alter the above said grounds". 2. Brief facts of the case as transpired from the impugned order are that the case was selected for audit u/s 214C regarding which the taxpayer duly intimated. The taxpayer was confronted with related issues through notices asking for various details/documents which remained un-complied with. Accordingly impugned ex-parte order was passed u/s 121(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 3. This case came up for hearing on 01.06.2016. Learned AR reiterated the contentions already submitted in the grounds of appeal as summed up above. Learned DR opposed…
🔒
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