| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2275 2022 SLD 2275 2022 PTD 1942 |
Lahore High Court
I.T.R. No. 59534 of 2021, (and others connected cases) heard on 9th June, 2022, Date of hearing: 9th June, 2022.
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Kamran Sheikh Mughal, Sohail Tariq, Liaquat Ali Chaudhary, Ch. Muhammad Yaseen Zahid, Ch. Muhammad Shakeel, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Naveed Tahir, Shahid Sarwar Chahil, Sheikh Aqeel Ahmad, Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Barrister Ahtsham Mukh
I.T.R. No. 59534 of 2021, (and others connected cases) heard on 9th June, 2022, Date of hearing: 9th June, 2022.
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Kamran Sheikh Mughal, Sohail Tariq, Liaquat Ali Chaudhary, Ch. Muhammad Yaseen Zahid, Ch. Muhammad Shakeel, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Naveed Tahir, Shahid Sarwar Chahil, Sheikh Aqeel Ahmad, Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Barrister Ahtsham Mukh
The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, LAHORE
VS
SHAZIA ZAFAR
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 111,111(1),122,133
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss.111, 122, 133---Unexplained income or assets---Separate notice, issuance of---Words “ the person offers no explanation “ and “ or the explanation offered by the person is not, in the Commissioners opinion, satisfactory “---Scope--- Dispute was with regard to additions made by authorities under S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--- Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue deleted such additions on the plea that a separate and specific notice was required for addition under S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---If instances / categories of unexplained income and assets, detailed in S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001, emerged to Commissioner, he was required to invite explanation from taxpayer, confronting information collected that its case would come within the head(s) specified in S.111(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before adjudging the matter---Specific word “notice” was not introduced in S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but words “ the person offers no explanation “ and “ or the explanation offered by the person is not, in the Commissioners opinion, satisfactory “ connoted that notice was the proper mechanism to call for explanation from taxpayer---Notice and corresponding non-satisfactory elucidation were prerequisites to make addition under S.111 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 otherwise addition was legally unsustainable owing to non-compliance of law---High Court maintained order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and replied the questions in negative---Reference was dismissed accordingly. Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Faisalabad v. Faqir Hussain and another 2019 PTD 1828; Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan Zone v. Falah ud Din Qureshi 2021 PTD 192; Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone Bahawalpur, Regional Tax Office, Bahawalpur v. Messrs Bashir Ahmed (Deceased) through LRs 2021 SCMR 1290; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Shafique 2015 PTD 1823 and Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Sukkur v. Messrs Ranipur CNG Station, Ranipur 2017 PTD 1839 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal statute---Applicability---All fiscal statutes apply prospectively…
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