2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inam Ellahi Sheikh, Chairman and Muhammad Jahandar, Judicial Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 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 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Inam Ellahi Sheikh, Chairman and Muhammad Jahandar, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Waqar for Appellant.
- Naushad Ali Khan D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 143‑B, 80‑C, 59A, 59(1), 62, 63, 65 & 156‑‑‑Statement regarding certain assessee‑‑‑Income from security guard services‑‑‑Deduction at source‑‑‑Filing of statement under S.143‑B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Tax demand was created under S.80‑C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Assessee contended that the business conducted did not attract the provisions of S.80‑C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the normal assessment should be made‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Admittedly, assessee only filed a statement under S. 143‑B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and no return was filed for the year‑‑‑In order to make a regular assessment, i.e. under Ss.59A, 59(1), 62, 63, or 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, a return was required from the assessee or a notice should had been served upon the assessee to file a return‑‑‑Such condition having not been fulfilled there could be no question of making an assessment in the absence of a return or a notice requiring the assessee to file the return.
Judgment & Decree
INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This further appeal of a private limited company arises out of an order, dated 29‑5‑2003 recorded by the learned CIT(A)‑I, Islamabad.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessee derives income from providing security guard services and filed a statement under section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 against which the Assessing Officer is said to have passed an order, dated 31‑1‑2001 under section 59A/80C of the same Ordinance. By such order, a tax demand of Rs.167,232 is said to have been created. The assessee then filed an application for rectification on the ground that full credit for the tax deducted had not been allowed. Hence the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, dated 30‑10‑2001 and reduced the tax payable to Rs.49,538 against which the assessee appears to have filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order directed the Assessing Officer to consider the request of rectification in the light of the decisions of the Tribunal mentioned in the impugned order. The assessee has now challenged this order of the learned CIT(A) on the ground that the business conducted by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and that normal assessment should be made.
3. The parties have been heard and the relevant orders perused Admittedly, the assessee only filed a statement under section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and no return was filed, for this year. In order to make a regular assessment, i.e. under sections 59A, 59(1) 62, 63 or 65, there is required to be a return from the assessee or a notice should have been served upon the assessee to file a return. This condition has not been fulfilled and thus there cannot be any question of making an assessment in the absence of a return or a notice requiring the assessee to file the return. The learned counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee had in fact filed another application with the Assessing Officer on the plea that a normal assessments should be made in this case and the case should not be processed under presumptive tax regime. No action is said to have been taken by the Assessing Officer on this application. However, such rectification application is not the subject‑matter of the present appeal. In view of the above discussion, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as misdirected. C.M.A./76/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.