| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 312 2026 SLD 312 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
MA (Cond.) No.582/LB/2025 ITA No.5845/LB/2024 (Tax Year 2019)
Presented By: (ZAHID SIKANDAR) Member (MUHAMMAD MOHSIN VIRK) Member
Mr. AR Haider, Advocate. Mr. Ghulfam Afzal Virk, DR
MA (Cond.) No.582/LB/2025 ITA No.5845/LB/2024 (Tax Year 2019)
Presented By: (ZAHID SIKANDAR) Member (MUHAMMAD MOHSIN VIRK) Member
Mr. AR Haider, Advocate. Mr. Ghulfam Afzal Virk, DR
Mr. Sabir Ali, Lahore.
VS
. The Addl. CIR, Zone-II, RTO, Lahore. Respondent
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 122(5A), 111, 122(9), 120(1), 111(1)(b), 39(3)
SUMMARY; Appeal Type: Filed directly before the Tribunal as a first appeal under the newly enacted Tax Laws (Amendments) Act, 2024. 2. Condonation Application (MA No. 582/LB/2025) Issue: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Taxpayer's Grounds for Delay: The delay was due to confusion created by the newly enacted law/amendment, which mandated the first appeal to be filed directly before the Tribunal. The delay was only for a few days and was unintentional. Tribunal Decision on Delay: The Tribunal accepted the application and condoned the delay, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances related to the new law. 3. Substantive Appeal (ITA No. 5845/LB/2024) Impugned Order: Amendment Order dated 28.04.2024, passed under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Departmental Action (Assessment): Proceedings under Section 122(5A) were initiated, and the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 23,266,420/- to the taxpayer's income. Basis of Addition: The additions were made because the taxpayer allegedly failed to justify the source of credit entries in his bank accounts and failed to furnish relevant documents. 4. Tribunal’s Findings and Final Decision Key Procedural Flaw: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue a separate notice under Section 111 of the Ordinance before making additions to the taxpayer's income. Legal Stance: This failure was deemed a fundamental procedural flaw, rendering the assessment without lawful authority. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIR vs Millat Tractors Limited, which explicitly requires separate Section 111 proceedings before making such an addition. Final Decision: The orders of the authorities below were vacated (set aside), and the appeal was remanded back to the concerned Assessing Officer with directions to pass a fresh speaking order according to the law. The taxpayer was directed to cooperate and furnish the required information. O R D E R MUHAMMAD MOHSIN VIRK,(MEMBER):The titled Income…