1999 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | S. M. Sibtain, Accountant Member and Tahseen Ahmed Bhatti, Judicial Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 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 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: S. M. Sibtain, Accountant Member and Tahseen Ahmed Bhatti, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rahmat Ali Shaikh for Appellant.
- Amjad Jamshed, D. R. for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.156, 50(4), 80-C(4) & 143-B
First Appellate Authority found the order passed by the Assessing Officer under 5.156 of Income Tax Ordinance, L 979, to be correct to the extent of demand on account of under deduction of tax under S.50(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as reflected in the statemer3t under S. 143-B filed by the assessee-- Validity
Held, no order under S.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was warranted in law because no original assessment order existed and no error was required to be rectified
Assessing Officer was empowered to issue the demand notice and challan for short deduction/payment of tax-- Order of the First Appellate Authority was vacated an order under S.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 passed by the Assessing Officer was cancelled.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. SIBTAIN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).
1. The appellant, in this appeal, has objected to the order of the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) for holding that the order, passed by the learned D.C.I.T. under section 156, to correct the demand of Rs.9,483 on account of under deduction of tax under subsection (4) of section 50 in the preceding financial year, in respect of the assessment commencing on the 1st July, 1991, as reflected in the statement under section 143(B) filed by the appellant, does not suffer from any infirmity of law.
2. We have heard the learned representatives of the two parties. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant has filed a statement under section 143(B) for the assessment year 1991-92. Total receipt have been declared at Rs.6,74,132 and total payment of tax is declared at Rs.4,
000. The appellant, in accordance with proviso to subsection (4) of section 80-C, is required to pay the amount representing the difference between the tax-payable under section 80-C, and the tax so paid, and all the provision of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 shall apply to the assessee accordingly.
3. Considering, the foregoing facts and the relevant provisions of law (ibid), we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel of the appellant that no order under section 156 is warranted in law because no original assessment order exists and no error is required to be rectified. The proviso to subsection (4) of section 80-C takes care of the instant situation and the Assessing Officer, in such cases, is empowered to issue the demand notice and challan for the short deduction/payment/of tax for the assessment year 1991-92. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned C.I.T. (A) is hereby vacated and the order under section 156 passed by the learned D.C.I.T. is hereby cancelled. C.M.A./20/(Trib.) Order accordingly