| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 19 1975 SLD 19 (1976) 34 TAX 31 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 215 of 1976, decision dated: 24-6-1976. dates of hearing ; 11-3-1976, 5-4-1976 and 6-4-1976
GAL MOHAMMAD KHAN, J
Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, assisted by Zia H. Rizvi, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 215 of 1976, decision dated: 24-6-1976. dates of hearing ; 11-3-1976, 5-4-1976 and 6-4-1976
GAL MOHAMMAD KHAN, J
Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, assisted by Zia H. Rizvi, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hag, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
SHAHID HAMEED, GULBERG, LAHORE
VS
Income Tax OFFICER, FILM CIRCLE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 23,23(4)
[Income Tax Act, 1922(XI of 1922)].......Section 23(4)-Rejection of accounts-Non-compliance of statutory notices-Whether book version liable to be rejected-Held yes It is now a Well established rule of law that the default in any of the situations as mentioned in Section 23(4) will attract an action under it and the Income Tax Officer will be within his powers to assess the income of a defaulting assessee in exercise of his best . It is the petitioner who is to blame himself for the action taken against him. He ignored and violated each and every notice and knowingly attracted the only step that the Income Tax Officer could take in the circumstances of the case. Cases referred to :- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Badridas Ramrai Shop Akola (A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 133(137) and The Law and Practice of Income Tax in Pakistan by Raza Naqvi (1972 Ed. Vol. II, Page 816). B. Income Tax Act, 1922(XI of 1922)-Section 23(4)-Rejection of accounts-Film artist-Certificates of Payment produced in support of income version-Whether liable to be rejected without proper verification of the certificates-Held no-order rejecting certificates without verification-Whether arbitrary and capricious-Held yes. Noting that the receipts declared by the assessee were not uniform and unsubstantiated and that as the other artists performing minor roles in the same films had declared between three to four thousands as their fees, the Income Tax Officer found it difficult for him to believe that the petitioner, who would be spending far more time in a leading role would receive only Rs. 5,000. There could be a good ground for rejecting petitioners version if the Income Tax Officer had found even one of the payment certificates produced by the petitioner as false or if he had found receipt to have been suppressed but in the absence of such finding he could not reject the account just for contentions raised. The analysis given above would show that the test applied by the Income Tax Officer was purely subjective and divorced from the facts altogether. The sort of argument being used by him may be logically sound but factually incorrect, Such a guess work could be valid and legal if the Income Taxβ¦
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