2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)
C.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs DESCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ch. Munir Sadiq, Judicial Member and Sohail Afzal, Accountant Member |
| Parties | C.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs DESCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE |
| Primary Law | (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Munir Sadiq, Judicial Member and Sohail Afzal, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs DESCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Alam, D.R. for Appellant.
- Muhammad Waseem Ch. And Muhammad Arshad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 122(5A) & 120
Assessment was amended on ground of being erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue by making various additions
Appeal was accepted by the First Appellate Authority
Revenue contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in deleting the addition on account of financial expenses
First Appellate Authority had extensively discussed the issue and examined the evidence available on record and case law and deleted the addition with observation that as per detail given with the help of audited accounts the taxpayer had sufficient funds for the advancement of loan to the associated undertakings; that the same situation existed in an other tax year and Taxation Officer after confronting the taxpayer did not make any addition and accepted same by saying that the amount in question was not loan but balance of inter-group transactions
Finding of the First Appellate Authority were in accordance with the facts of the case and law on the subject and it needed no interference
Appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of the titled appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order No.32-33 dated 27-10-2010 passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), Lahore. Brief facts as narrated in the impugned order are that the respondent filed income tax returns to declare income at Rs.26,285,724 and Rs.13,591,531 for the tax year under consideration. Examination of record revealed that the income tax return which has been treated as an assessment order was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Proceedings were initiated and the Taxation Officer amended the assessment under section 122(5A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by making variees additions so as to assess income at Rs.33.693,249, Being aggrieved, the taxpayer filed an appeal before learned CIR(A) who was pleased to accept the same. This has aggrieved the revenue, hence this appeal.
3. Learned DR has argued that CIR(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made at Rs.4,846,000 on account of financial expenses. Learned AR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that the submissions made by learned DR are without any substance whereas the findings recorded by learned CIR(A) are well reasoned. The order of the learned CIR (A) has extensively discussed this issue and examined the evidence available on record and case law and then deleted the addition. He has observed that as per detail given with the help of audited accounts the appellant has sufficient funds for the advancement of loan to the associated undertakings. Furthermore, the same situation existed in the tax year 2004 when the Addl. CIR/Taxation Officer after confronting the appellant did not make any addition and accepted in Para 4.3 of order that the amount in question was not loan but balance of inter group transactions. Therefore, he has fully justified his decision. The finding of the learned Commissioner (A) are in accordance with the facts of the case and law on the subject, therefore, it needs no interference.
5. For what has been discussed above, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merits. CMA/25/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.