Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 143,52,86,50(4),80C,80CC,143B

(a) Income-tax--- ----Ex parte decision---Principle---Merits of the .case to be considered--­First Appellate Authority should have examined the merits of the case to thrash out the issue agitated by the assessee, even though the ex parte decision by the Assessing Officer was justified. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Ss. 52, 86, 50(4), 80C, 80CC & 143-B---S.R.O. No. 368(1)/94, dated 7-5-1994---Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Ss.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was declared without lawful jurisdiction on the ground that the capital of the company was below 1.5 million---Order passed by the First Appellate Authority was vacated while the order by the Assessing Officer was cancelled by the Tribunal. 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1480 rel. ORDER JAVED TAHIR BUTT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER). ---These two appeals have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 against the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the following common grounds:--- (a) That the dismissal of appeal by the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of ex parte is unwarranted in the eye of law as he ignores rest of grounds of appeal agitated before him (for the assessment year 1998-99). (b) That the ex-parte order passed under section 52 unlawful, illegal and without lawful jurisdiction. (c) That the appellant is not responsible for making deduction under section 50(4) as capital employed in the business is less than 1.5 million and the appellant is not recipient. (d). That the exercise of jurisdiction by the DCIT under section 52 is unwarranted in the eye of law as the DCIT failed to identify the names of parties recipient from whom the appellant did not deduct tax under section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. (e) That the working back, of purchases by the DCIT giving the margin of GP at a rate of 15 % is not maintainable in the eye of law as the margin is much higher than considered by the DCIT as appellant is manufacturer. (f) That the assumption of jurisdiction under section 52 is without legal effect as S.R.O. No. 368(1)/94 is applicable in the case of appellant. (g) That the additional tax imposed under section 86 is ab initio null and void as the appellant did…

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