Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 746 2022 SLD 746 (2022) 125 TAX 382 2023 PTD 1704
Lahore High Court
I.C.A. No. 67776 of 2021, decided on 01.11.2021, Date of hearing: 01.11.2021
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE, MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Asif, Advocate for the Appellant. Barrister Zargham Lukhesar, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. Muhammad Yahya Johar, Advocate for FBR.

SAMMAN GHEE MILLS (PVT) LTD.

VS

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 114,177,177(1),177(6),177(7),214C

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 8,10A

INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001 (XLIX OF 2001)----Sections: 114, 177, 177(1), 177(6), 177(7) ,  214C - Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles 8 ,  10A - Return of Income - Audit - Selection for income tax audit for the years 2016, 2018, 2019 ,  2020 - Notices - Writ petition challenging vires of notices - Dismissal of constitutional petition by single judge in chamber - Challenge to - FACTS Brief facts are that the Appellant being a Private Limited Company was issued notices dated 25.06.2021 and 05.07.2021 by Respondent No.3 selecting it for income tax audit for the years 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020, under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Being aggrieved of the said notices, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No.49024/2021, seeking setting aside of those notices being contrary to law, issued under unlawful authority. This writ petition was clubbed with some connected matters involving similar question of law and was dismissed, vide the impugned order. Hence this Appeal. ARGUMENTS It is contended by the learned counsel that while passing the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge in Chamber, inadvertently clubbed Appellant’s case with other judicial matters wherein notices under section 177(1) of the Income Ordinance, 2001 (the “Ordinance”) had been challenged ignoring the fact that Appellant’s case was different from that of those, as he had assailed selection for audit for multiple years in view of section 177(6) of the Ordinance. Adds that a similar matter, as is being agitated through this Appeal, has already been decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court. It is further contended that the Appellant was selected for audit under section 214C of the Ordinance, therefore, the Respondent was required to give reasons for selection for audit; that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge to the extent of the Appellant entirely ignored that a taxpayer once selected for audit for a particular tax year could not be selected again without giving reasonable cause and strong reasons for the same and thus to conduct collective audit for four financial years is against the norms of direction issued by this Court in…
🔒
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