1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Masood Kh. for Appellant.
- Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 6th November, 1995
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22
G. P. rate
Assessee returned sales by applying his own G.P. rate
Assessing Officer rejected same and assessed sale and G.P. rate at high altitude as assessee failed to establish even import sales according to documents
Appellate Additional Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed same and reduced G.P. rate
Held, assessee's complaint against rejection of declared version was not well barred
Assessee admittedly failed to substantiate his version
No exception could be taken to that aspect of assessment as well as First Appellate Authority's order
Tribunal found estimate of sales somewhat on higher side
Some reduction was allowed
Disallowances appeared reasonable as assessee had not thrown serious challenge to observation.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 6th November, 1995 NASIM SIKANDAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
This further appeal by an individual assails an order ordered by A.A.C. Range-I, Multan on 23-11-1991.
2. The assessee in this case is an individual who deals in nylon ropes etc For the assessment year 1990-91 import sales were disclosed at Rs.28,45,000 and local sales at Rs.3,10,
000. The rates in these accounts respectively were inducted at 7.36 % and 15 % .The assessee failed to establish even imports sales as according to the documents produced there amounted to Rs.27,85,
550. The declared version was accordingly rejected and sales in import account estimated at Rs.29,00,000 and the local rates at Rs.4,00,
000. After making adjustment in P&L account total income was assessed at Rs.1,71,050 as against returned at Rs.57,
999. Learned first appellate authority A.A.C. Multan, Range confirmed the sales estimated in both of the accounts as well as and the rate applied at 10% in import account. This has grieved the assessee.
3. Parties have been heard. The complaint of the assessee against rejection of declared version in both of the accounts is not well-barred. The assessee admittedly failed to substantiate the import as well as the total unless as indicated above. Therefore, no exceptions can possibly be taken to this aspect of the assessment as well as first appellate order. Moreover, we find that the estimates made by the assessing officer are some what on the higher side. Accordingly it is directed that import sales shall be restricted to Rs.28,50,000 and local sales to Rs.3,25,
000. The disclosed rate in case of local sales having been accepted, no interfere in this regard is required. The applied rate at 10% in import account appears reasonable in absence of any parallel case cited or relied upon by the assessee.
4. The disallowances in P&L account also appear reasonable as the assessee has not thrown a serious challenge to the observations made by the assessing officer. These shall accordingly stand confirmed.
5. The appeal succeeds only to the extent of reduction in estimation of sales as ruled above. C.M.S./319/Trib. Order accordingly.