Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 153(1)161,161(1)(a),176,205,221

Law: Income Tax Rules, 2002

Section: 44(2)

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XLIX OF 2001) Sections: 153(1). 161 205 - SRO: 586(I)/91, dated 30.06.1991 failure to pay tax collected or deducted - Default surcharge - Appellant is engaged in goods transport business - Payment for goods services and contracts - Charge of tax - The plea of the appellant is that OIR has already passed order u/s 161/205 and is thus not justified to pass fresh and duplicate order - Dismissal of appeal by CIR(A) - Validity - Claim of appellant under head other expenses - Non-deduction of withholding tax - Scope - FACTS Uriel facts leading to tiling of this appeal are that the appellant is engaged in goods transport business. The impugned order has been passed by the DOR u/s 161/205 of the Income l ax Ordinance. 2001. I he taxpayer feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the DOR tiled appeal before the learned CIR(A) who vide his impugned order dated 25-04-2018 has dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer, therefore taxpayer has tiled present appeal before this Tribunal. ARGUMENTS MR. Vishno Raja and Syed Riazuddin Advocates/ARs attended on behalf of the appellant whereas the respondent Department was represented by Mr Naib Ali Pathan DR. At the outset it has been contended by the learned ARs that in this case an order u s 161/205 was already passed by the then DCIR Unit 03 WHT Zone. RTO-II, Karachi vide DC No 132/11 on 30-06-2014. Copy of the said order of the DCIR Unit 03, WHT Zone, RTO-II Karachi has been produced by the ARs and has been taken on record. It was explained by the learned ARs that due to oversight the then AR could not bring the factum of the existence of an order u/s 161/2015 dated 30- 06-2014 in the knowledge of the DOR/author of the impugned order u s 161/205 under appeal. According to the ARs in the presence of an order already finalized u/s 161/205 the succeeding offer/author of the impugned order u/s 161 205 under appeal was not justified in finalizing the impugned order u/s 161 205. According to them the impugned order u/s 161 205 constitutes a duplicate order for which there is no room in the law. It has been contended that the learned CIR(A) was not justified in dismissing the contention and submissions of 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