| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 149 2004 SLD 149 2004 PTD 618 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I. T. A. No. 1916/KB of 2002, decision dated: 13-10-2003hearing DATE : 1st October, 2003
S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Faiz Ellahi Memon, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, ITP for
Respondent
I. T. A. No. 1916/KB of 2002, decision dated: 13-10-2003hearing DATE : 1st October, 2003
S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Faiz Ellahi Memon, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, ITP 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, 1979
Section: 59D,65,13
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 59-D---Tax on undisclosed income---Assessees declaration of Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000 under S. 59-D of the income Tax Ordinance, 1979 filed on 30-6-2000 had declared cash for the period from assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000---Any investment made after 30-6-1999 would not be covered by the said declaration. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----Ss. 65 & 13---Additional assessment ---Approval---Permission--¬Where "approval" was mandatory, only "permission" by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was not enough for addition under S.13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Law in this respect favoured the assessee---Assessing Officer and Inspecting Additional Commissioner had, because of their inapt and careless attitude, caused loss to the Revenue---Departmental appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. 1998 SCMR 2013; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238 and I.T.A. No.676 of 2003 rel. ORDER AGHA KAFEEL BARIK (ACCOLTNTANT MEMBER).---This departmental appeal has been filed against order of the CIT(A), dated 22-7-2002 through which he has annulled the impugned order of the DCIT passed under sections 63/56 and deleted addition of Rs.4,72,000 made under section 13(1)(b) and Rs.9,20,000 made under section 13(1)(e) by the DCIT. 2. Heard Mr. Faiz Ellahi Memon; D.R./IAC and Abdul Tahir, ITP/counsel for the, appellant. 3. The facts of the case are as under: -- (i) Originally assessment was finalized on total income of Rs.1,93,820. On information through verification note regarding purchase/ownership of four different vehicles listed by the DCIT in his reassessment order, the DCIT reopened the assessment under section 65, after issuance of show-pause notice and also obtaining permission of the IAC. The assessee explained that all the vehicles were sold out for Rs.6,00,000 in total and that the said amount in cash was declared under TAS 2000. The assessee also submitted details of purchasers with NIC No. to the DCIT. On being summoned some of the purchasers verified the sale of the two vehicles. But the DCIT did not find explanation of the assessee adequate in respect of investment/disposal of vehicles CK 1445 (Suzuki…
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