| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1076 2022 SLD 1076 (2022) 126 TAX 27 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
MA (Rect) No. 123/KB/2020 In: ITA No. 1335/KB/2018 decidedon 14.06.2021, Date of hearing: 02.02.2021
SAIF ULLAH KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AMINA NAZEER ANSARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Petitioner(s) by: Asif Haroon, ACA
Respondent(s) by: Abid Aziz, Memon, D.R.
MA (Rect) No. 123/KB/2020 In: ITA No. 1335/KB/2018 decidedon 14.06.2021, Date of hearing: 02.02.2021
SAIF ULLAH KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AMINA NAZEER ANSARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Petitioner(s) by: Asif Haroon, ACA
Respondent(s) by: Abid Aziz, Memon, D.R.
FEROZE P. BHANDARA, KARACHIVSTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Zone-IV, CRTO, KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 221
NOTES - Rectification of mistakes - Filing of application by Taxpayer for rectification of mistake in the order of Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 in ITA No. 1335/KB/2018 - Re-adjudication of an order - Scope of Section 221 of ordinance - Mistake apparent from the record - Concept of - Petition to re-examine and re-adjudicate the issues already decided, under the grab of “Rectification of mistake” - Validity - FACTS This Miscellaneous Application for rectification is moved by the applicant/taxpayer against the Order of this Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 in ITA No.1335/KB/2018. The applicant has taken grounds of appeal. ARGUMENTS The learned A.R. argued that the impugned order suffers from material and apparent mistake on account of not following the binding of higher appellate authorities as more fully explained in later paragraphs. The learned AR argued that the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in its decision reported as 1997 PTD (Trib) 879 has allowed rectification of its order, which had not followed an earlier view of the Division Bench. He argued that in this case also, we respectfully submit that the Hon’ble Members have not followed the s of Hon’ble High Courts on point of law; thus requires rectification/recall of the impugned order. The learned AR argued that a is per incuriam when it fails to follow an earlier binding precedent. The learned AR in the light of above decisions argued that since the s of the higher courts were not followed in the impugned order hence the impugned order is required to be rectified/recalled. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that this is not the case of rectification as there is no mistake apparent from the record. While supporting the order of this Tribunal, he further submitted that the order is based on the pecuniary facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no need for rectification. He argued that miscellaneous application for rectification may be dismissed in limine as the same did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. DECISION (A,B,CD.) Rectification application is sort of seeking re-heaving/re- adjudication which is beyond the scope of Section 221 -…
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