Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 4, 4C, 53, 114, 120, 122, 170, 170(1), 170(3), 170(4), 171, 171(2)(a), 171(2)(c)

     Brief Facts   1.    Background of the Appeal The taxpayer, M/s Zameen Media (Pvt) Ltd., filed an appeal (ITA No. 1221/LB/2026) along with applications for condonation of delay (MA(Cond) No. 259/LB/2026) and stay (MA(Stay) No. 1326/LB/2026) for Tax Year 2022 before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench. The appeal challenged the assessment order dated 26.02.2026 passed under Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, charging Super Tax of Rs. 47,405,704/-. 2. Initial Allegations and Assessment The taxpayer filed its return for Tax Year 2022 without paying Super Tax under Section 4C. After show cause notice and adjudication, the Assessing Officer computed income chargeable to Super Tax at Rs. 1,185,142,592/- and levied Super Tax @ 4%. 3. Taxpayer’s Defense Key grounds raised: Failure to adjust available previous-year refunds against the Super Tax liability. Section 4C is not a self-contained provision; liability must be crystallized through assessment under Section 120/122. Recovery was premature as only the short order of the Federal Constitutional Court was available. Reliance on various Tribunal and FTO orders regarding refund adjustment. 4. Proceedings on Condonation The appeal was time-barred by 18 days. The taxpayer explained that the order was not properly served and the appeal was filed promptly upon knowledge. The Tribunal accepted the explanation (supported by affidavit) and condoned the delay in the interest of deciding the matter on merits. 5. Tribunal’s Findings on Merits The constitutional validity of Section 4C stood conclusively upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court vide short order dated 27.01.2026 in the DG Khan Cement case. Super Tax is a standalone tax on income. Refund adjustment under Section 170 requires proper application and determination by the Commissioner; taxpayers cannot unilaterally adjust unverified refunds. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Hamid Ashraf. Earlier Tribunal stay orders did not create binding precedent on the refund issue in the present context. The assessment under Section 4C was found free from legal infirmity. 6. Final…