| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1 2006 SLD 1 2006 PTD 499 (2005) 92 TAX 141 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos. 843/LB to 846/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2005
MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Petitioner by: Saeed Chaudhry, FCA
I.T.As. Nos. 843/LB to 846/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2005
MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Petitioner by: Saeed Chaudhry, FCA
AL KARAM CNG AND OTHERS
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 25,25(c),30,50,50(1),50(7b),52,62,86,136 ,156
NOTES: ........... Income from other sources Erroneous treatment in earlier years did not constitute a valid precedent in law and has no binding force. Each year is independent and res judicata did not apply in income tax proceedings. Challenge to first remand order before the Appellate Tribunal in the second appeal. First Appellate Authority set aside the order of Assessing Officer for another opportunity to explain its position with regard to the nature of interest income. Assessee did not file any appeal before Appellate Tribunal against the order of First Appellate Authority. Remand order in the first round could not be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal in the second round of Appeal. Rectification of mistake Assessee"s income from other sources under S.30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 wrongly set off against brought forward business losses was not permissible under the law and such mistake was rectifiable under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as it was a mistake of computation of assessee"s total income/loss. Ref: (2002) 85 Tax 245 (Trib.), 1999 PTD 708, 1998 PTD 3179, 2002 PTD 250, 2000 PTD 363 THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER:---.--- These appeals by a private limited-Company arise out of order passed by the CIT(A). 2. According to the AR of assessee company, the provisions of section 156 have been wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer. I; is argued that no mistake either of fact or of law was patent on the face of the assessment order for 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily held that assessee-Companys interest income from PECO was income from other sources hence liable to be brought to tax under section 30 of the Ordinance and that the same could not be set off against the brought forward business loss of the Company. It is the ARs contention that similar interest income arose to the assessee in the earlier years as well and the same was never treated as income from other sources under section 30 but was always treated as part of the assessees regular business income. Besides, assessee-Companys interest income from PECO, the Assessing Officer has also treated income fromβ¦
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