| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 79 2003 SLD 79 2003 PTD 783 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
W.T.A. No. 1230/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-04-2002.hearing DATE : 13-03-2002.
RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, MUHAMMAD TAQUIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dr. Sarshar Hussain for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
W.T.A. No. 1230/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-04-2002.hearing DATE : 13-03-2002.
RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, MUHAMMAD TAQUIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dr. Sarshar Hussain for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Finance Act, 1991
Section: 12(5),12(6),12(7),12(8),12(10),12(2)
Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)
Section: 17A,32,23,24,25,35
(a) Finance Act (XII of 1991)]....S.12(6) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S.17A, Corporate Assets Tax Assessment of Corporate Assets Tax Rectification Merger -Limitation Assessee pleaded in appeal that the order passed was barred by limitation in terms of S. 17A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 Validity -Soon after the receipt of the assessment order, assessee moved rectification application challenging the order sought to be rectified -Order originally made under S.12(6) of the Finance Act, 1991 having merged with the rectifying order, reckoning from the date of the order under S.12(6)(10) of the Finance Act, 1991 same was passed within the statutory limit of time. (b) Income tax Acknowledgment receipt without rubber stamp of concerned office -Evidentiary value In absence of rubber stamp of the concerned office affixed on acknowledgment receipt/letter head pad same could not he accepted as valid piece of evidence. Per Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry (Accountant Member), Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik (Judicial Member) agreeing with different reasons (c) Finance Act (XII of 1991) S.12(6)(7)(8) Corporate Assets Tax Non filing of return voluntarily Confusion by Circulars of C.B.R. Levy of penalty and additional tax Validity Assessee did not file its return nor paid tax alongwith the return Penalty under S.12(7) and additional tax under S.12(8) of the Finance Act, 1991 was rightly charged by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority Without indicating the circulars and without pointing out and identifying the confusion in such circulars, Appellate Tribunal could not hold that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue created confusion in the minds of the taxpayers Assessee could not be supposed to be confused and that he was under a bona fide impression that return was not required to be filed Assessee having neither taken such plea in its grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal nor in grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority nor during his arguments its contention regarding filing of returns of Corporate Assets Tax under S.12(2) of the Finance Act, 1991 was not proved No ambiguity existed on the issue that the appellant…
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