| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 81 2005 SLD 81 2005 PTD 1033 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. C-339-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Khursheed Ali Khan for the Complainant. Taj Muhammad Jonejo, DCIT for
Respondents
Complaint No. C-339-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Khursheed Ali Khan for the Complainant. Taj Muhammad Jonejo, DCIT for
Respondents
Messrs HOTUMAL, COMMISSION AGENT AND FERTILIZER AGENCY, JHOL DISTRICT SANGHAR
VS
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 122,122(1),122A
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 2,2(3)
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1)
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss.122(1) & 122-A---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.13(1)(aa) & 59(1)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Amendment of assessment---Revision by Commissioner---Unexplained investment---Self-assessment---Complainant was aggrieved of amendment of assessment---Self-assessment return included agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000 declared for the rate purpose---Such return was accepted---Additional Commissioner Income Tax issued show-cause notice confronted the complainant with discrepancy in the wealth statement as it did not include agricultural land, he therefore intended to amend the assessment under section 122 and make addition under section 13(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Complainant's explanation of acquiring agricultural land on "Muqatta" (lease) was not accepted and addition of Rs.4,00,000 was made---Complainant feeling aggrieved filed revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which was turned down---Validity---"Muqatta" agreement was not in the name of complainant---Affidavit of "Muqattidar" was not admissible as proof of oral transaction---Evidence of "Muqatta"/lease was found false the addition of Rs.4,00,000 as unexplained investment on lease was self-contradictory---Complainant had not explained source of income of Rs.1,00,000 declared in the return---Complainant's revision application was turned down by the Zonal Commissioner without examining the facts of the case else he could have redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant---Maladministration was established---Federal Tax Ombudsman therefore recommended the Central Board of Revenue to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to set aside the order passed under section 122(1) by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 122-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 with the direction to pass a fresh order. FINDINGS/DECISION The complainant an individual derives income as commission agent and fertilizer dealer and is an existing Income Tax Assessee of Circle Sanghar on National Tax Number 8-12-0241930. 2. 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