Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 29 2006 SLD 29 2006 PTD 441 (2006) 94 TAX 44
Sindh High Court
I.T.A. No. 27 of 1994, decision dated: 14-12-2005
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervaiz
Respondent(s) by: Nasrullah Awan

MRS. FARIDA ABDUL AZIZ

VS

COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 59,59A,62,65,65(1)(b),136(1),136(2)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S.65---Exercise of discretion by Assessing Officer under S.65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Essential conditions stated. Wide powers have been conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner/ Assessing Officer to exercise jurisdiction under section 65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in the cases, which are covered by any of the categories (a), (b) & (c) of subsection (1) thereof, but subject to fulfilment of two conditions. The first requirement of definite information has not been bracketed with any condition of outside source, impliedly meaning that such definite information can also be outcome of existing record. Obtaining of prior approval by the Assessing Officer from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is the other requirement under subsection (2) of section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----Ss.62 & 65---Additional assessment, framing of---Definite information---Non-application of mind by Assessing Officer to revised wealth statement filed before framing of previous assessment order---Additional assessment framed by successor Assessing Officer on basis of revised wealth statement---Plea, of assessee was that additional assessment was not based on any definite information collected from any outside source, rather same was a change of opinion by successor Assessing Officer on basis of record already available with him---Validity---Requirement of definite information was not subject to any condition of outside source, rather same could be outcome of existing record---Such wealth statement had skipped sight of predecessor Assessing Officer, thus, he could not apply mind to such aspect of the case---Assessing Officer had passed previous assessment order in a routine manner without conscious application of mind to such wealth statement---Such wealth statement had furnished definite information to successor Assessing Officer to invoke provisions of S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Such plea of assessee was not tenable. 1993 SCMR 493; Edulji Dinsha Limited PLD 1990 SC 399 = 1990 PTD 155; Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and another v. Pakistan…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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