| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 39 2003 SLD 39 2003 PTD 405 (2003) 87 TAX 260 |
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I.T.As. Nos. 1297/LB and 1298/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st September, 2002, hearing DATE : 18-09-2002
EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for
Respondent.
I.T.As. Nos. 1297/LB and 1298/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st September, 2002, hearing DATE : 18-09-2002
EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, 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, 1979
Section: 52,62,86
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]........Ss. 52, 86 & 62 Liability of persons failing to deduct or pay tax -Charge of additional tax for failure to deduct and pay tax Assessee in default Assessing Officer treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for non deduction of tax on various heads of accounts without specifying any particular amount and person and created demand under S.52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 alongwith additional tax under S.86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Order was also passed after about 5 years from the date of issuance of show cause notice Validity Assessing Officer without particularly pinpointing the payments liable to tax deduction had made liable the whole of the payments made under the various heads of accounts as mentioned in the order and thus failed to qualify and also to quantify the exact amount of tax deduction against the particular payment made, vis a vis against particular person because the tax was charged in respect of a particular payment and also in respect of a particular person without determining the payment and person the imposition of .tax could not get a legal. shape Importantly the Department had slept over the case after the issuance of the notice, dated 26 12 1996 till June, 2001, when hurriedly entire proceedings were concluded, ,so there was no justification of such inordinate delay in finalization of order under Ss 52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after issuance of notice, dated 26 12 1996 as all this did not give the impression that the judicious view was adopted Such condition was depictive of the callousness on the part of the functionaries of the Department towards national interest Initiating of the proceedings for action under S.52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, thereafter passing of the order by framing the assessment for creating the demand and thirdly the imposition of Additional Tax under S.86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the so worked out tax demand under S.52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by treating the assessee as "Assessee in default", were null and void in the eye of the law which were annulled and entire tax demand was knocked off by the Appellate…
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