Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 170,170(2)(c)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S. 170(2)(c)---Refund---Limitation of refund application---First Appellate Authority had found that according to S.170(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the application should have been moved within two years period and since it was filed beyond that period, it had rightly been rejected by the Assessing Officer---Validity---Claim of refund could not be refused on account of limitation---Applications though were filed beyond the prescribed time limit yet the refund could be issued---Authorities below were not justified in rejecting the application of refund on account of limitation---Appellate Tribunal directed that the genuine refund, if any, due to the taxpayer should be allowed. 1998 PTD 2012; PTCL 1998 CL 354 (SC of Pak.) and 2004 CTLR (sic) rel. ORDER This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the taxpayer assailing the CIT(A)'s order, dated 17-7-2006 whereby he had confirmed the action of the Taxation Officer regarding rejection of refund application having not been filed within the prescribed time limit. 2. Facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that the application filed by the taxpayer for issuance of refund was rejected being not filed within the time limit of two years as prescribed under section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Before the learned CIT(A), it was pleaded that the time limit prescribed for submission of application for issuance of refund was `directory' and not `mandatory'. It was further argued that where there was no dispute about the entitlement of refund the department should have issued the refund voucher irrespective of the time limit. In support of his, contention reliance was placed on the following reported cases:-- (i) 1998 PTD 2012 (ii) PTCL 1998 CL. 354 (SC of Pak). However, the learned CIT(A) did not agree and held that according to sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of section 170 the application should have been moved within the two years period and since it was filed beyond that period, it had rightly been rejected by the Taxation Officer. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Taxation Officer, hence this appeal. 3. The learned AR strongly…

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