1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mehboob Alam, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 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 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mehboob Alam, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant.
- Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th November, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.156 & 13(l)(aa)
Appellant pointed out that due to oversight no finding had, been given to the objection relating to addition under S.13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Such objection having been set aside by the First Appellate Authority, same was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal .
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MURBULLAH SIDDIQUI (CHAIRMAN).
By above applications rectification is sought in our order, dated 13-8-1995 in I.T.As. Nos.227 to 229/KB of 1993-94 and I.T.A. No.2223/KB of 1993-94 relating to the assessment years 1988-89 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.
2. The main appeals were heard and disposed of on 13-8-1995, ex parte. It is submitted in the rectification applications that the notice was served on the appellant/applicant and he proceeded from Sukkur to Karachi but their car went out of order during journey and, therefore, they could not reach Karachi on the date of hearing. However, no mistake has been pointed out in the common issue contested in all the four years under appeal pertaining to the estimate of sale. Mr. Abdul Tahir has submitted that due to oversight no finding has been given to the objection relating to addition under section 13(1)(aa). This contention is correct. The omission is a mistake apparent on record and, therefore, the issue is being discussed now. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that objection was raised to the effect that, "addition under section 13(1)(aa) is without lawful authority". However, a perusal of the first appellate order shows that the learned C.I.T. (A) set aside the issue with certain directions. The appellant did not assail the setting aside of the issue but assailed the addition which was not existing after the setting aside of addition by the learned C.I.T. (A). Since the grounds of appeal is defective, therefore, requires no consideration and as such the direction of learned C.I.T. (A) setting aside the issue relating to addition under section 13(I)(aa) is hereby maintained.
3. The reference applications stand disposed of as above. C.M.A./568/Trib. Application dismissed.