Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1493 2011 SLD 1493 2011 PTD 2286
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No.633/KB of 2001, decision dated: 23rd June, 2011
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs. KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION, LTD., KARACHI

VS

COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RANGE B, Zone-III, LTU, KARACHI

Law:

Section:

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss.127, 122 (SA), 122(9) & 113---Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)---Stay of demand---First Appellate Authority allowed stay application but had directed to pay 50% outstanding demand---Taxpayer contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified to direct pay 50% of outstanding demand because Additional Commissioner while passing order under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had erred in law and on facts in misinterpreting the proviso to subsection (1) of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and computing the minimum tax at 0.5% which, action was ab initio void, illegal as no notice under S.122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 read with S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued to the taxpayer deviating from the computation made in the show-cause notice; and without giving any reason had restricted the stay allowed with the condition to payment of 50% of outstanding demand without mentioning any reason---Validity---No justification to make condition for the payment of 50% of the tax demand without giving any reason was available---For grant of interim relief it was necessary for a court to. record positive finding in favour of either party, the party claiming relief was only to be shown to have made out a prima facie case which in turn meant an arguable and not an indefeasible case---In such like matters besides prima facie case it was bounden duty of the court to examine the balance of convenience, irreparable loss as well as behaviour and conduct of the parties---First Appellate Authority in the present case, had not given any reason for making condition of the payment of 50% of the tax demand for allowing the stay---No justification was available for the payment of 50% of the tax demand---Stay allowed by the First Appellate Authority was upheld and the condition of payment of 50% of the outstanding demand was deleted and Department was directed not to initiate recovery proceedings regarding the subject-matter of appeal pending before First Appellate Authority---Order of First Appellate Authority was amended accordingly. PLD 2003 SC 344; 2006 PTD 670; 1992 CLC 2540 and…
🔒
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