Pakistan Case Law← Search
2019 PCTLR 1178, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1294

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, SPECIAL RTO, MULTAN vs Messrs ATTIQ-

Citation2019 PCTLR 1178, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1294
CourtAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Case No.I.T.A. No,866/LB of 2014
Date2019-02-01
Judge(s)Shahid Masood Manzar
ResultAppeal rejected

ORDER

SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, (CHAIR MAN).--- The titled appeal has been filed by department against the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned CIR(A) Multan, on the following grounds:-- 1) That order of the learned CIR (Appeals) dated 18.02.2013 is bad in law and wrong in facts.

That the learned Commissioner inland Revenue (Appeals) has erred in holding that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant as three statutory notices were issued and served upon the taxpayer but he deliberately avoided to join audit proceedings.

That proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the taxpayer by issuing show cause notice and intimating intended action.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in terms of section 214C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Board selected the case of the taxpayer for audit of tax affairs for tax year 2012. IDR followed by a reminder remained un-complied with. The DCIR issued a show cause notice bearing No,914 dated 10.01.2014 for compliance on 17.01.2014 which A was not complied with, as well. The DCIR imposed penalty amounting to Rs,25,000/- vide order dated 17.01.2014 passed under section 182(1)(8)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 . Being aggrieved the taxpayer filed appeal before the learned CIR(A) who vide its order dated 18.02.2014 annulled the penalty order , hence the instant appeal by the department.

3. Both the parties have been heard and relevant orders perused. The learned DR contended that the learned CIR(A) was not justified to annul the impugned order as proper opportunity of being heard was duly given to the taxpayer but he deliberately avoided to join the audit proceedings. The learned counsel on the other hand opposed the arguments advanced by the learned DR and submitted no show cause notice has ever been received by the taxpayer and the learned CIR(A) was amply justified to annul the impugned order on the basis of reported judgment cited as (sic) SCMR 838 and 2005 PTD 152 (Lah. H.C.). The learned Counsel of the taxpayer also produced before this court Death Certificate of the taxpayer according to which the taxpayer was died on 27.12.2014. Keeping all these facts in view, I am of the view that the learned CIR(A) was justified to annul the impugned order which is hereby upheld.

4. Appeal of the Revenue being devoid of any merits stands rejected.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search