Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 131(4),56,61

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of. 1979)-----S.131(4)---Admission of documentary evidence in Appellate Forum--¬Notice under Ss.56 & 61 were issued by the Assessing Officer---No one attended on due date---Subsequently explanations without any documentary evidence were furnished---Document4ry evidence was produced for the first time before Appellate Forum---First Appellate Forum admitted the evidence---Validity---Appellate Authority was not competent to receive documentary evidence at appellate stage in the circumstances. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----Ss.56 & 61---Issuance of notices under Ss.56 & 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would not be illegal when no response was made by assessee after issuance of notice under S.56 of the Ordinance. 1987 PTD (Trib.) 325; Star Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. 1974 PTD 200; M/s. Dhanarjamal Manumal & Sons v. C.I.T. 1985 PTD 33; Bean H. M. Inspector of Taxes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Colling Ltd. (1946) 27 TC 296; Industrial Management Limited, Karachi v. C.I.T. PLD 1978 Kar. 673; M/s. Sultan Textile Mills Limited v. C.I.T. 1990 PTD 241 and Mrs. Yasmeen Lari v. Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 1990 PTD 967 ref. JUDGMENT JAVED IQBAL, J.---This is an application preferred on behalf of Memoona Ahmed (petitioner) under section 136(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) against refusal of Tribunal to refer the question involved in the matter and for decision of said questions with the following prayer: "It is accordingly respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court in its Advisory Jurisdiction may be pleased to answer the following questions: --- (i) Whether notice issued under section 56 accompanied by notice under section 61 of Income Tax Ordinance, was illegal and consequently the whole proceedings were incompetently initiated. (ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the A.E.C. was not justified in admitting the evidence for first time at the appellate stage. " 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in pursuant to some information that petitioner had purchased property located at Mouza Kaichi Baig in sum of Rs.32,99,900, the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492