2015 PLP (Trib (PTD)

This appeal has been filed by the taxpayer against the order of learned CIR(Appeals), Faisalabad, dated 25-1-2012, whereby the learned first appellate authority upheld the assessment order passed under sections 122(1)/122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Taxation Officer, Sargodha.

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that as per information the taxpayer purchased vehicles. After the receipt of information with regard to the purchase of vehicles, the taxation officer initiated proceedings in the case of the taxpayer by issuing notices under sections 114 and 116, in response to notices return and wealth statement were filed by the taxpayer which has found that the taxpayer had not sufficient sources to explain the investment made for purchase of vehicles. Therefore, the taxation officer issued notice under section 122(1) read with section 122(5). The reply was found unsatisfactory and the taxation officer amended the assessment under section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as under:-- Declared income Rs.60,000 Additional under section 111(1)(b) Rs.5,850,000 Addition under section 111(1)(c) Rs.100,000 Total Income Rs.6,010,000 Being aggrieved the taxpayer filed appeal before the learned CIR(Appeals) who vide his order dated supra upheld the treatment of the taxation officer as per embodied in the impugned order.

3. The learned AR contended that the vehicles in question were purchased by the taxpayer a Hino at Rs.26,50, 000 on 6-1-2009 and same bus sale out at Rs.26,75,000 on 20-12-2009 in pursuance the taxpayer purchased another Hino Bus at Rs.23,60,000 on 12-2-2010 and this vehicle was sale out at Rs.23,60,000 on 6-3-2010. Then the taxpayer had purchased a Motor Car Suzuki Cultus at Rs.850,000 on 30-4-2010 and same fund been sale out at Rs.870,000 on 30-9-2011. He argued that these investments were made from sale of motors vehicles, copies of sales deeds along with other documents are also submitted before the taxation officer but he wrongly and illegality made the additions under section 111(1)(b) and under section 111(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, at Rs.59,50,000 which is unjustified and contrary to the facts of the case. The said wealth statement also contained explanation with regard to the sources of investment.

4. The learned DR contended that the taxpayer was bound to declare the vehicle in his wealth statement and explain the sources of investment. The learned representative of the revenue on the other hand, supported the orders of both the authorities below.

5. We have given due consideration to the rival arguments of both the parties, gone through the relevant record available on file was examined and found the stance of the taxpayer to be un-convincing and not forceful because the taxpayer was involved in sale and purchase of commercial as well as other motor vehicles but never filed return of income before issuance of notices under sections 114 and 116 for the tax year 2010 and no wealth statement has ever been filed therefore, the availability of cash amounting to Rs.12,205,000 was not established. Consequently, the upholding the assessment finalized under sections 122(1)/122(5) and additions made under sections 111(1)(b) and 111(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the CIR(Appeals) is maintained.

6. For reasons discussed supra, we are of the view that the treatment confirmed by the first appellate authority is in accordance with law and facts of the case and therefore, no reason to interfere is called for.

7. Consequently appeal filed by the taxpayer fails as discussed above. CMA/61/Tax(Trib.) Appeal rejected.