Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 129, 221, 122(5A), 221(2)

M/s Askari Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, LTU, Islamabad.       ORDER M. M. AKRAM (Judicial Member): The appellant has preferred the instant appeal assailing Order-in-Appeal No. 300/2018 dated January 01, 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I) [“CIR(A)”], LTU Islamabad, under section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“the Ordinance”) for Tax Year 2015. The appeal has been instituted on the grounds articulated in the memorandum of appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant is a banking company deriving income from the business of banking and the provision of financial services. Its original assessment for Tax Year 2015 was amended vide order passed under section 122(5A) of the Ordinance (DCR No. 06/51 dated 29.04.2016), wherein the taxable income was determined at Rs. 4,176,309,751 and tax payable at Rs. 1,628,760,803. The assessing officer extended credit for taxes paid during the relevant year, amounting to Rs. 1,397,323,713, subject to verification from the record. Upon scrutiny, the Inland Revenue Officer (“IRO”) observed that the appellant had failed to furnish verifiable documentary proof of tax withheld at source amounting to Rs. 44,463,155. Likewise, details and verifiable evidence regarding the refund adjustment of Rs. 15,516,558 were not available on record, nor was any determined refund traceable in the appellant’s profile. Consequently, a show-cause notice under section 221(2) of the Ordinance was issued vide No. 167 dated 17.08.2016 by the IRO, confronting the appellant with the alleged mistakes apparent from the record. Thereafter, the IRO passed the impugned rectification order, disallowing both credits, after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing. 3. The appellant, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned CIR(A), LTU Islamabad. After examining the record and the contentions of the parties, the learned CIR(A), vide Order-in-Appeal No. 300/2018 dated January 01, 2018, upheld the action of the IRO. The appellant, still dissatisfied, has now filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The appeal…