Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 129, 161, 205, 124

ORDER M. M. AKRAM (Judicial Member): The      appellant—taxpayer         has preferred the present appeal against Order No. 43/2019 dated August 26, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), et > ax Office, Rawalpindi, under section 129 of the Income Tax 2001 ("the Ordinance"), for the tax year 2014, on the forth in the memorandum of appeal. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant was alleged to have failed in discharging its statutory obligation as a withholding agent. Consequently, proceedings under sections 161 and 205 of the Ordinance were initiated, culminating in an order whereby the appellant was treated as a person in default and held liable to pay withholding tax along with a default surcharge amounting to Rs. 566,187. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide Order No. 111/2017 dated August 4, 2017, whereby the assessment was annulled. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer re-initiated proceedings under section 124 of the Ordinance by issuing fresh hearing notices. In response, the appellant submitted a reply which was found unsatisfactory by the department. Thereafter, an order under section 161(1) of the Ordinance was passed, holding the appellant personally liable for withholding tax in default along with default surcharge aggregating to Rs. 749,851 for the tax year under consideration. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), RTO Rawalpindi. Vide order dated August 26, 2019, the learned CIR(A) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter with directions to decide the case afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the remand order, the appellant has approached this Tribunal through the present appeal. 5. The appeal was fixed for hearing on February 18, 2026, The learned ized Representative (AR) for the appellant forcefully contended that sessing Officer had misconstrued the directions of the earlier ellate order…

Login required to view the attachment.