Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 111 2008 SLD 111 2008 PTD 694
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No.1517-K of 2003, decision dated: 6-02-2004
, JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
A.A. Zuberi, Advisor, Dealing Officer Rehan Hassan Naqvi for the Complainant Agha Hadaytullah, (IAC) for
Respondent

Messrs TANVEER AND BROTHERS, KARACHI

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 66,

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 126(1),122(5A)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(e)

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129(e)---Actions performed in normal course of duties would be presumed to be bona fide. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 126(1)---Evidence of assessment---Assessment order being an original document was cognizable evidence, thus, all particulars contained therein would be treated as correct. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S.66-A---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.122(5-A)---Revision of assessment---Prerequisites---Where assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, then jurisdiction to invoke, S.66-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.122(5-A), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) would arise---Mere disagreement among officers on result of assessment order or possibility of framing a better or more revenue yielding assessment by IAC/CIT would not be valid ground to treat completed assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue---Where assessment order was not in accordance with law, then erroneousness causing prejudice to revenue would occur---Element of erroneousness would be ruled out, where department never pleaded for enhancement of income in appeals filed against assessment order---Prejudice to revenue alone would not vest jurisdiction for revision of assessment. 1997 PTD (Trib.) 902 fol. (d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S.122(5-A)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss.9 & 11---Issuance of notice to revise already completed assessment---Validity---Impugned notice had ignored that matter had already been considered at assessment stage and reconsidered in the light of Inspection Note at re-assessment stage with approval of superior officers---Mere disagreement or possibility of framing a better or more revenue yielding assessment by IAC/CIT would not be valid ground for revising such assessment---Pre-conditions prescribed by law to revise completed assessment had not been fulfilled rendering impugned notice without jurisdiction, contrary to law, perverse and arbitrary falling in realm of maladministration---Ombudsman would have jurisdiction to investigate such case, particularly when department…
🔒
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