| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 38 1975 SLD 38 (1976) 34 TAX 1 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi
I.T.A. No, 3107(KB) and 3108 (KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71), decision dated: 2-9-1975
M. MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.Z. FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Miss Razia Bano, D.R., for the
Respondent
I.T.A. No, 3107(KB) and 3108 (KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71), decision dated: 2-9-1975
M. MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.Z. FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Miss Razia Bano, D.R., for the
Respondent
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 18A(8),35
[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].......Sections 18A(8). 35-Additional Tax-Rectification of mistake-Failure to pay advance tax-Assessments without adding "additional tax"- Whether a mistake apparent from record-Held yes-Whether the provisions of Section 35 applicable-Held yes-Additional tax charged without according opportunity of hearing to assessee -Whether sustainable in law--Held no. It is an admitted fact that the Income Tax Officer had committed a error in not adding the additional tax to the tax as determined on the basis of the respective regular assessments, as envisaged by section 18A(8) of the Income Tax Act. This was, therefore, a mistake apparent h ions of from record and it could only be rectified by invoking t e proves section 35 of the Income Tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had undoubtedly mentioned the orders to have been passed under section 18A(6) of the Income--tax Act, but in the facts of the case there is no escape from orders of a nature the conclusion a p g, If is again an undisputed fact that no notice or chance of hearing was d It is difficult given to the assessee before passing the impugned orders. to agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the department that no notice under section 35 was necessary and that it was not a case of enhancement of assessment as mentioned in the provision of section 35. The Tax Officer was under a legal obligation to provide an e n m opportunity of being heard to the assessee prior to the passing of the appellate orders as the effect of the rustication of the order is clearly the enhancement of the assessment. Case followed :- M Chocklingam and M. Meyyappan v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (1963) 48 I.T.R. 54(S.C.); (1963) 7 Taxation 22 ( S. C.). JUDGMENT [The Order was passed by M. MAZHAR ALI, Judicial Member].-The assessee, a Private Limited Company, has brought these two appeals relating to the charge years 1969-70 and 1970-71 against the orders purported to have been passed under Section 18A(6) of the Income Tax Act, The appellant company, as per impugned orders, was required to pay advance tax under Section 18A(1) of the Income Tax Act for these two years but no payment was madeβ¦
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