1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ch. Irshad Ahmad, Judicial Member and Hamidullah Malik, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 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 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Irshad Ahmad, Judicial Member and Hamidullah Malik, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant
- Muhammad Arshad, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th October, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.62 & 132
Assessing Officer, on remand, made assessment at income higher than the income originally assessed without indicating as to what mistake was committed by him in making earlier assessment by which assessee's income was computed at lesser figure
Such assessment on remand, held, was not justified.
Judgment & Decree
The assessee, a registered firm, derives income from oil and lubricants and providing carriage services. In its return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 the assessee declared its net income at Rs.55,
460. The assessing officer rejected the declared version and made assessment at net income of Rs.85,
000. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who set aside the assessment for de. novo proceedings. On reassessment the assessing officer made assessment at net income of Rs.1,56,
200. The assessee's appeal has been rejected by the Appeal Commissioner. Through this appeal the assessee objects to the order of the Appeal Commissioner on the ground that the estimate of sales and application of 12.25% G.P. rate are exorbitant and harsh. The addition out of the profit and loss account expenses particularly under the heads salary, entertainment, travelling, tanker expenses and miscellaneous are arbitrary and unjustified. None has appeared for the assessee in spite of the fact that the notice of hearing of appeal has been despatched through registered post at the address provided by the assessee. Although the assessee has not appeared before us to contest the computation of his income made by the assessing officer but since originally the assessment was made on him at net income of Rs.85,000 it will be inappropriate to confirm higher assessment made later. The confirmation of later higher assessment would create an impression that he has been punished because he had objected to the earlier assessment. May be that the later assessment of the assessee's income is more near to his real income but since like the earlier assessment the later assessment is also based purely on estimation a reasonable man watching the reassessment proceedings would genuinely raise his eye brow that the assessee is being punished because he had objected to the assessing officer's earlier orders before the Appeal Commissioner. Thus, it would be inappropriate to confirm the later assessment. While taking this view we have eye on future and other cases. The assessing officer while making reassessment has not indicated what mistake was committed by him in making earlier assessment by which assessee's income was computed at lesser figure. The citizen should not be deterred in availing their statutory rights particularly right of appeal. Consequently, accepting the assessee's appeal the later assessment is vacated and the assessment originally made at net income of Rs.85,000 is restored. M.B.A./295/(Trib.) Order accordingly.