| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 47 2009 SLD 47 2009 PTD 841 2010 PTCL 364 (2009) 99 TAX 239 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-2210 of 2007, decision dated: 5-03-2009
MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND S. MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ
Rehanul Hassan Naqvi along with M.S. Lubna Perwaiz for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui for
Respondent
Constitutional Petition No. D-2210 of 2007, decision dated: 5-03-2009
MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND S. MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ
Rehanul Hassan Naqvi along with M.S. Lubna Perwaiz for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui for
Respondent
Messrs NOBLE (PVT.) LTD. through Manager Finance and Administration
VS
FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 4 others
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 120,122,177
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss. 120, 122 & 177---Return finalized under S.120(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 amended under S.122(5-A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 after detailed scrutiny---Selection of such case by Commissioner for audit under 5.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for same reasons on basis of which action under S.122(5-A) thereof had been taken---Validity---Procedure for selecting case for audit was different from procedure adopted for amending order under S.122(5-A) of the Ordinance-Case once selected for audit should be subjected to strong audit and discrepancies in record, if any, should be highlighted for either confirming order passed or taking action for its amendment---Assessment order amended under S.122 of the Ordinance, should be pointed in favour of selecting a case for audit as on basis of amendment of order, assumption would be that return converted into assessment order could not be relied on---Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 did not bar selection of case for audit under S.177 thereof, if for same tax year action had already been taken under S.122 thereof---Selection of case for total audit under S.177 of the Ordinance and action under S.122 thereof being different actions, no bar existed for initiating both actions for same tax year even on identical points---Commissioner had powers to select cases for audit even before promulgation of S.120(1-A) of the Ordinance thus, S.120(1-A) had retrospective effect---Impugned order was legal and with jurisdiction---Principles. Central Insurance Co. and others v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232 = 1993 PTD 766 and Premier Mercantile Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. 2007 PTD 2521 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Duty of Court was first to arrive at intention of legislature and then to arrive on its basis at interpretation of the relevant section. ORDER MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This petition has been filed impugning the Notice No. Jud-I/CIT/Cos/I/2007-08/344, dated 29-9-2007 intimating to the petitioner that his case for the tax year, 2005 has been selected for audit under section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and various reasons for selecting the case…
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