Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 33 2010 SLD 33 (2010) 101 TAX 249 2010 PTCL 827 2010 PTD 571
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 11166, 273, 12332, 11771, 19842, 14508, 19630... Decided DATE 7-12-2009, hearing DATE : 22-10-2009
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J
M. Ilyas Khan and M. Naseem Kashmiri, Dy. A.G. for
Respondents.

Messrs SADAR ANJUMANEAHMEDIA through General Attorney

VS

COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (AUDIT DIVISION), FAISALABAD and 3 others

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 177,177(1),177(2),177(4),177(4)(a)(b)(c) (d)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)----S.177(1), (2) & (4)---Selection of case for audit---Criteria---Provisions of S.177(1) and (2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, are disjunctive and not conjunctive-Case can always be selected for audit on the basis of criteria as laid down by Federal Board of Revenue, besides which and in addition thereto, persons can also be selected for audit by Commissioner under S.17(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Commissioner Income Tax is empowered under S.177(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to issue notice on the basis of criteria spelt out in S.177(4)(a)(b)(c) & (d) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. (b) Interpretation of statutes---Discriminatory law---Scope---Any law though not ex facie discriminatory but capable of being used or applied in discriminatory manner cannot be termed as good law. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---S.177(4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Income Tax assessment---Selection of case for audit---Procedure---Petitioners were assessees of income tax and were aggrieved of notice issued by Commissioner Income Tax for selection of their cases for audit---Validity---Conditions and parameters set forth in S.177(4)(a)(b)(c) & (d) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were jurisdictional basis, existence whereof was a sine qua non for selection of a person for audit---Existence of such jurisdictional basis must necessarily be determined before such power could be exercised---Such discrimination could only be effected after hearing petitioner and granting them opportunity to produce material to displace the case, which exercise could only be undertaken on individual case to case basis---Any objections raised by petitioner would be required to be adjudicated upon through speaking order---If jurisdiction to issue such notice was challenged then question of jurisdiction would require to be dealt with and decided first, before the Commissioner could proceed further in the matter by commencing intrusive process of audit---High Court declined to strike down notices under S.177(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, however, petitioners would be at liberty to respond thereto…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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