MRS. JUSTICE AYESHA A. MALIK.--(1). The petitioner is a private limited company, which has impugned the amended assessm ent order under section 122(1) and (5) read with section 124 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance, 2001) dated 29-6-2012.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection with respect to the maintainability of this petition. He argued that adequate remedy is available to the petitioner against the assessm ent order and that the statutory remedy must be availed under section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. As such the petitioner cannot place his grievance before this Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
3. When confronted with this point, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since this is a case of illegal selection of audit, hence the petitioner has moved this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. He has placed relied on a case titled "Shahnawaz (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director Finance v.
Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad" (PTCL 2011 CL. 914).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. The impugned order has been issued under section 122(1) and (5) read with section 124 of the Ordinance, 2001 against which a right of appeal lies under section 127 of the Ordinance, 2001.
It is also noted that the petitioner participated in the audit proceedings, which led to the amendment in the assessm ent. At that point, the petitioner did not raise any objection with respect to the selection for audit. Hence no case of illegality is made out against the impugned order.