| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 26 2011 SLD 26 (2010) 102 TAX 554 2011 PTD 705 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No. 697/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd August, 2010
SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ikram ul Haq for Appellant AND Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for
Respondent
I.T.A. No. 697/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd August, 2010
SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ikram ul Haq for Appellant AND Muhammad Tahir, D.R. 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: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 18,37,122,122(5),122(5A),153,153(1)(c)
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-----Ss.18, 122(5A) & 153(1)(c)---Income from business---Assessee contended that receipt in dispute could only be taxed under Presumptive Tax Regime, otherwise it was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax under S.18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---In original notice under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the sole ground for revision was that receipt did not fall under S.153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 because only construction of building and installation of plant and machinery were covered in the said provision---However, in the second show-cause notice after more than four years an altogether different stance was taken---Section 18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was applied in taxing the amount, whereas it was specifically conveyed in the second notice that the said section was not applicable---Taxpayer had consistent stance from the beginning that amount was capital receipt, not chargeable to tax under S.18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, but liable to tax under presumptive tax regime that made no distinction between capital or revenue receipt. Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others case 1997 SCMR 641; PLD 1978 Kar. 1047 = 1978 PTD 328; 2001 PTD 2829; 2006 PTD 2291; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2321; (1964) 9 Tax 38 (Trib.); I.T.As. Nos.393 and 270/KB/2010 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S.122(5A)---Amendment of assessments---Deviation in passing order from the grounds mentioned in show-cause notice(s) was violative of law---Order of the adjudication being ultimately based on a ground which was not mentioned in the show-cause notice, order was palpably illegal and void on the face of it. The Collector Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Rahim Din 1987 SCMR 1840 rel. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss. 122 (5A), 18 & 37---Amendment of assessment---Various notices--Fishing inquiries---Since department issued various notices under S.122 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinances, 2001 on different grounds and kept on going for enquiries, the proceedings under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were void---Fishing inquiries were not allowed while…
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