Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 124,124A,122(5A)

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 2(3)

[Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)]......Section 124A---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Powers of tax authorities to modify orders, etc.---Commissioner, in light of S.124A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, civil petition for Leave to appeal before the Supreme Court may follow High Court decisions even in those cases in which C.P.L.A. had been filed and may take necessary action, if any, within one year after the Supreme Court s in those cases. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) S.122(5A)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Amendment of assessment---Retrospective application of S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was contrary to law and constituted "maladministration" as defined S.2(3)(i)(a) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) S. 122(5A)---Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Amendment of assessment---Flour mill---Issuance of notice---Inspecting Additional Commissioner on reply to the notice, took up a different ground that acceptance of grinding arrangements by the Assessing Officer without any probe into the matter was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue; to process further and looking into the genuineness of the grinding arrangement, assessee was asked to produce the parties for cross-examination, otherwise inference will be drawn that the grinding was assessee's own grinding and assessment will be amended accordingly---Validity---Original notice under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued on totally wrong assumption and ignoring relevant material on record---Said assumptions could not be a valid reason for considering the assessment to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of revenue---When erroneous assumption was pointed out by the complainant/assessee the Inspecting Additional Commissioner took up himself the role of an Assessing Officer and commenced assessment proceedings by requiring the complainant to produce the parties from whom he had ground 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