Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 148, 47, 47C, 154, 162,169(2)(f), 129(1)

O R D E R M. M. AKRAM (Judicial Member): The titled appeals have been instituted by the appellant-taxpayer against the impugned consolidated order dated 11.07.2016, passed for the Tax Years 2013, 2014 and 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Inland Revenue, RTO Quetta [hereinafter referred to as the “CIR(A)”] under section 129(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”). Since all the appeals arise out of an identical factual matrix and involve common questions of law and facts, they are being disposed of through this consolidated common order. 2.    The taxpayer is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing other food products not elsewhere classified. For the Tax Years 2013, 2014 and 2015, the taxpayer electronically filed its Returns of Income/Statements of Final Taxation along with the prescribed withholding statements. Upon examination of the returns, it was observed by the assessing officer that the taxpayer had declared export proceeds but had not paid/deducted tax thereon at the rate prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Consequently, proceedings under section 162 of the Ordinance were initiated for the respective tax years by issuance of show-cause notices. The taxpayer furnished replies thereto, which were considered by the assessing officer but found unsatisfactory, whereafter orders under section 162 were passed creating liability on account of the alleged failure to deduct/collect tax under section 154 amounting to Rs.28,532,930/-, Rs.28,257,337/- and Rs.17,479,511 in respect of the tax years 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively. 3.    Aggrieved, the taxpayer preferred appeals before the learned CIR(A), who allowed the appeals in favour of the taxpayer. The learned CIR(A), after examining the record and considering the written and verbal submissions of the parties, held that the taxpayer, being an exporter of cooking oil and vegetable ghee to Afghanistan and operating under the Duty and Tax Remission for Exports (DTRE) Scheme,…