Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 549 2022 SLD 549 2022 PTD 524
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos.971, 972 and 973 of 2018, decided on 12thFebruary, 2019, date of hearing: 17th January, 2019.
MRS. SEEMA IMRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SAIFULLAH KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Riazuddin and Vashno Raja Qavi
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Aslam Jamro, DR

MESSRS PRIME AGENCIESVSTHE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, RTO-III, KARACHI

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 2(28A),111,111(1)(b),122,122(5),122(9),1 77

NOTES: Amendment of assessment--- “Definite information”--- Scope---Availability of ‘definite information’ as envisaged in subsection (5) read with subsection (9) of S. 122 is an essential pre-requisite to amend an order under S.122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Amendment of assessment--Unexplained income and assets---Imputable income---Audit--- @Definite information@ non-availability of---Effect---Appellant/taxpayer being an exporter paid tax on exports under Final Tax Regime (FTR) and filed wealth statements---Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (DCIR) observed that the appellant had claimed higher income in wealth reconciliations than the “imputable income” worked back on the basis of tax on exports---Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue worked out ‘imputable income’ based on tax collected under FTR and arrived at impugned additions, treating the same as “income from unexplained sources” assessable under S. 111, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--- Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue directed the appellant to produce books of accounts and documents and on its failure passed the impugned orders---Validity---Expression ‘imputable income’ as used in S.2(28A), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not have been applied to the whole of the Ordinance--- @Definite information” was not available with the DCIR and the very jurisdiction was exercised without first satisfying the pre-requisite of subsection (5) of S.122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Alleged ‘imputable income’ already declared by the taxpayer in the wealth reconciliation statements was not a “definite information”---Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in ignoring the fact that the books of accounts could only be produced under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereas appellant’s case was not selected for audit---No addition under S. 111(1)(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was warranted as no specific notice was issued in that regard---Impugned orders were annulled and the Sukkur v. Ranipur CNG Station 2012 PTD 790; 2015 PTD (Trib.) 1242; 2015 PTD (Trib.) 2042 and 2010 PTD 704 ref. ORDER: MRS. SEEMA IMRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:---.--- These three income tax appeals have been filed by the appellant taxpayer against the…
🔒
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