2002 PLP 1572 (PTD)
Messrs MALIK BROS. KHAD DEALERS, MIANWALI Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1572 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (R) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Messrs MALIK BROS. KHAD DEALERS, MIANWALI Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1572 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1572 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (R) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1572 (PTD) (Messrs MALIK BROS. KHAD DEALERS, MIANWALI Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Manzoor Ahmad, D.C.I.T., Circle 02, Sargodha for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Manzoor Ahmad, D.C.I.T., Circle 02, Sargodha for Respondent. This is a complaint by an AOP relating to nop‑payment of refund resulting from income‑tax reassessment in its case for the assessment year 1991‑92.
2. In the respondent's reply it has been stated refund of Rs. 93,848 has been created by the ALIT, Circle 11, Bhakkar but the demand of Rs.60,459 outstanding against one of the members of the AOP is to be adjusted against the refund.
3. During the hearing the authorized representative of the complainant accepted that the refund had been correctly worked out and also accepted, in principle, that tax liability of the member of the AOP is adjustable against the refund as provided by law. The respondent may, therefore, make adjustment of the tax demand outstanding in the case of the member of the AOP against the AOP's refund, but only to the extent provided in section 77(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance viz. only to the extent that the tax demand is in respect of the member of the AOP's share of income in the AOP.
4. In the light of the above it is recommended that: (i) Refund be paid to the complainant in the light of the observations at para. 3 above. (ii) Compliance be, reported within 30 days. C.M.A./C.M.A./240/FTO Order accordingly.